UNILATERALLY APPOINTING AN ARBITRATOR BY ONE PARTY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF UNBIASED ADJUDICATION - DELHI HC

The Delhi High Court reiterated that a single party to an arbitration cannot be allowed to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of the dispute. 

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait passed the judgment in a petition by a construction company seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. 

The petitioner, a construction company, won a bid for the development of a residential complex invited by the respondent society. The petitioner scheduled to complete the work by December 27, 2018, but, due to some reason, the delay was caused on the part of the respondent. By May 31, 2019, the petitioner was able to complete the work as per the bid.

Certain other disputes arose between the parties, which led the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause and suggest three persons for the role of arbitrator. However, instead of considering the petitioner's list of arbitrators, the respondents sent a list of four other names for the role. The petitioner informed them of their inability to accept the list of arbitrators sent out by the respondents. The respondent chose to appoint a sole arbitrator unilaterally. And hence the present petition seeking fresh appointment of an arbitrator. 

The Court, while placing reliance on the SC decision in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 held that Unilateral appointment by the respondent is rejected and appointed retired judge Justice BD Ahmed for the position of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. 

Found this useful? You might also be interested in: NON-RECOVERY OF WEAPONS USED FOR OR DURING A ROBBERY CANNOT BE A REASON TO NOT FRAME CHARGES U/S SECTION 397 OF IPC - DELHI HC

Author: Papiha Ghoshal