Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Railways must provide 30-name arbitrator panel, cannot appoint from undisclosed sources under Section 12(5)</h1> <h3>BCL Secure Premises (P) Ltd. Versus Metro Railway, Kolkata</h3> BCL Secure Premises (P) Ltd. Versus Metro Railway, Kolkata - TMI Issues: Interpretation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Seventh Schedule; Application of Supreme Court's decision in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on arbitrator eligibility; Challenge to panel of arbitrators provided by respondent railways.In this judgment, the court delves into the interpretation and application of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in conjunction with the Seventh Schedule. The Seventh Schedule outlines specific relationships that render a person ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. The court references the Supreme Court's decision in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., emphasizing the distinction between independence and impartiality of arbitrators. The judgment highlights that technical expertise or professional knowledge possessed by past government officers does not automatically disqualify them from arbitration appointments.Regarding the specific case at hand, the court analyzes a contractual dispute between the parties involving the supply and installation of surveillance systems at metro railway stations. The court scrutinizes the arbitration clause within the contract, which mandates the appointment of arbitrators from a panel of railway officers. The petitioner challenges the panel provided by the respondent railways, citing non-compliance with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules of the Act.The court notes that the Supreme Court's ruling clarifies that ex-government employees with technical expertise can serve as arbitrators. However, the court finds discrepancies in the panel selection process by the railways, emphasizing the need for a broader list of potential arbitrators to ensure impartiality and independence. The court directs the railways to furnish a panel of at least 30 diverse candidates for the petitioner's selection, advocating for transparency in the appointment process to align with the Supreme Court's decision.In conclusion, the court sets aside the initial panel provided by the respondent railways and instructs them to present a more extensive list of arbitrator candidates. The judgment recommends amending the arbitration clause in the general conditions of the contract to align with the principles outlined in the Supreme Court's decision. The court emphasizes the importance of transparency and fairness in the arbitrator selection process to uphold the integrity of arbitration proceedings.