<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (11) TMI 542 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761556</link>
    <description>Party autonomy in arbitration is subject to mandatory safeguards of independence, impartiality and equality. An appointment clause that lets one party unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or control the other party&#039;s choice from a curated panel, is inconsistent with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where it creates justifiable doubts as to neutrality. The principle of equal treatment applies at the appointment stage as well, because tribunal constitution affects the fairness of the process from the outset. In public-private contracts, a clause giving a government entity dominant control over tribunal composition is inconsistent with Article 14 and the public policy of arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:14:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 542 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761556</link>
      <description>Party autonomy in arbitration is subject to mandatory safeguards of independence, impartiality and equality. An appointment clause that lets one party unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or control the other party&#039;s choice from a curated panel, is inconsistent with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where it creates justifiable doubts as to neutrality. The principle of equal treatment applies at the appointment stage as well, because tribunal constitution affects the fairness of the process from the outset. In public-private contracts, a clause giving a government entity dominant control over tribunal composition is inconsistent with Article 14 and the public policy of arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>