TaxTMI Login
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
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Application to enforce ex parte arbitral award dismissed as arbitrator unilaterally appointed and ineligible under Section 12(5)</h1> <h3>Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Versus Narendra Kumar Prajapat</h3> Appellant's application to enforce an ex parte arbitral award was dismissed by the SC because the arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed by one party ... Rejection of appellant’s application for enforcement of an ex-parte arbitral award - enforcement of arbitral award rendered by an arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed by one party without consent of the other and who was ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- It appears to be an admitted position that the Arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the petitioner was ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator by virtue of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, in view of this peculiar factual position, no case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Delay condoned. Paragraph 6 of the impugned order records an admitted position that the arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the petitioner was ineligible to act 'by virtue of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.' Given this peculiar factual position, 'no case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.' The Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the pending application stands disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
