9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the order of appointment of an arbitrator based on jurisdiction and bias. Analysis: The judgment concerns an application challenging a High Court order that set aside a previous order appointing an arbitrator due to alleged lack of jurisdiction. The arbitration agreement contained a clause specifying the appointment of an arbitrator by the Director/Unit Head, C.M.D.A. The appellant sought the removal of the named arbitrator and requested the appointment of an independent member of the Bar. The first learned Judge appointed a new arbitrator, Sri Amitav Guha, due to alleged bias of the original arbitrator. The respondents participated in the arbitration proceedings without challenging the appointment, leading to multiple sittings and extensions granted by the Court. In the subsequent challenge to the arbitrator's appointment, the Court referred to precedents emphasizing that a party cannot participate in arbitration proceedings, benefit from them, and then challenge the proceedings later based on known disabilities or objections. Acquiescence and participation in the arbitration process preclude a party from disputing the proceedings' validity. The principle of waiver and estoppel applies not only after the award but also when challenging the proceedings in which the party participated. The Court concluded that the respondents' participation amounted to acquiescence, barring them from challenging the appointment of the arbitrator. The Court held that the judgment and impugned order could not be sustained, allowing the appeal and reinstating the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator appointed in the initial order. The time for making the award was extended, and any further extension requests were to be made to the High Court of Calcutta. The appeal was disposed of with each party bearing their respective costs.
|
