9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the appointment of a third arbitrator under the Arbitration Act. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order appointing a third arbitrator in a dispute arising from an agreement made in 1989. The original arbitrators failed to reach a decision, leading to the appointment of an umpire. Subsequently, there were changes in the arbitrators due to resignations and deaths. The petitioner offered to proceed under the new Arbitration Act, but the respondent did not respond promptly. Eventually, a third arbitrator, Justice Dr. A.S. Anand (Retd.), was appointed by the designated authority. The petitioner contested this appointment on the grounds that it terminated the mandate of the previous umpire and that consent of the umpire was not required for the appointment. The petitioner argued that the designated authority erred in replacing the umpire and proceeding without his consent. The court noted that in the absence of evidence that the previous umpire, Justice Mishra, was aware of his appointment and had consented to it, his appointment remained ineffective. The petitioner's communication indicating the need for a third arbitrator highlighted the lack of progress in the arbitration process. As a result, the court found that the appointment of Justice Dr. A.S. Anand (Retd.) as the third arbitrator was valid and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that since the previous umpire's appointment had not taken effect, there was no bar to appointing a new arbitrator under section 11(4) of the new Arbitration Act. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition challenging the appointment of the third arbitrator, ruling in favor of the designated authority's decision.
|
