Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two arbitration petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 646 of 2015 challenged the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the respondents in a property dispute. The respondents had appointed a sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement, and the petitioners participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising any objection. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the present petitions seeking to set aside the appointment. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioners had actively participated in the arbitration proceedings, including filing statements of claim and appearing before the arbitrator. The court held that by such participation, the petitioners had waived their right to object to the appointment under Section 4 of the Act. The court further noted that the appointment was made by consent of the parties and was valid. Consequently, the court dismissed both arbitration petitions, upholding the appointment of the sole arbitrator. The decision reinforces the principle that parties cannot challenge the appointment of an arbitrator after having participated in the proceedings without objection.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Validity of Appointment by Consent - The petitioners challenged the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the respondents, contending that the appointment was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The court held that since the petitioners had participated in the arbitration proceedings without objection, they had waived their right to challenge the appointment. The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the appointment of the arbitrator. (Paras 1-10) B) Arbitration Law - Waiver of Right to Object - Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Participation in Proceedings - The court observed that the petitioners had participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising any objection regarding the appointment of the arbitrator. Therefore, they were deemed to have waived their right to object under Section 4 of the Act. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the respondents in terms of the arbitration agreement is valid and whether the petitioners can challenge such appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The court dismissed both arbitration petitions, upholding the appointment of the sole arbitrator.
Law Points
- Appointment of arbitrator by consent
- Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Challenge to appointment
- Waiver of right to object
