Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the mandate of an arbitral tribunal consisting of officers of a party stood terminated under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether a fresh arbitrator was required to be appointed.
Analysis: Section 12(5) introduced a mandatory rule of neutrality by rendering ineligible any person whose relationship with the parties, counsel, or dispute falls within the Seventh Schedule, notwithstanding any prior agreement. The Court applied the settled principle that such ineligibility results in a de jure inability to function as arbitrator and automatically terminates the mandate. It further held that the absence of any express agreement in writing waiving the statutory disqualification meant that participation or the age of the reference could not preserve the tribunal's mandate. The tribunal comprising officers of the respondent was therefore hit by the statutory bar, and the later appointment had to be made afresh under the Act.
Conclusion: The mandate of the existing arbitral tribunal had terminated by operation of law and the appellant was entitled to appointment of a fresh arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: A person rendered ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot continue as arbitrator, and the ineligibility can be waived only by an express written agreement after disputes have arisen.