https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313306 The Calcutta HC dismissed an execution petition for an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator. The court held that awards by de jure ineligible arbitrators lack inherent jurisdiction and cannot be accorded privileged status as valid awards. Such awards suffer from permanent bias and prejudice that cannot be cured even during execution proceedings. While Section 36 of the Arbitration Act provides no scope for interference except execution, the court applied principles from civil procedure jurisprudence regarding decrees passed by bodies lacking jurisdiction. The award was deemed non est in law, making it non-executable, though parties could re-agitate before a new tribunal. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2024 05:28:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313306 The Calcutta HC dismissed an execution petition for an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator. The court held that awards by de jure ineligible arbitrators lack inherent jurisdiction and cannot be accorded privileged status as valid awards. Such awards suffer from permanent bias and prejudice that cannot be cured even during execution proceedings. While Section 36 of the Arbitration Act provides no scope for interference except execution, the court applied principles from civil procedure jurisprudence regarding decrees passed by bodies lacking jurisdiction. The award was deemed non est in law, making it non-executable, though parties could re-agitate before a new tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313306