Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns a reference from the Executing Court in a batch of execution applications filed by M/s. S. E. Investments Ltd. (now Paisalo Digital Limited) against various judgment-debtors. The execution was based on arbitral awards where the arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally by the applicant prior to 23 October 2015. The Executing Court, on 1 July 2026, framed two questions of law for consideration: whether such unilateral appointment is without jurisdiction and void ab initio, and if so, whether the executing court can consider the defect at the execution stage despite no prior challenge to the award. The High Court, in this judgment, traces the background of arbitration law, noting that prior to the 2015 amendment, judicial recognition was given to unilateral appointments. With the insertion of Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule by Act 3 of 2016, having retrospective effect from 23 October 2015, the legislature sought to address concerns of bias and impartiality. The judgment reproduces the amended Section 12 and the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The full reasoning and decision on the questions referred are not available in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether unilateral appointment of arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 is without jurisdiction, and consequently all proceedings arising therefrom would be void ab-initio ? (ii) If answer to question (i) is in affirmative, then whether Executing Court can consider the effect of such unilateral appointment of arbitrator, when there is no challenge to the award passed by the arbitrator ?
Law Points
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 12(5) and Seventh Schedule
- ineligibility of arbitrator
- unilateral appointment without jurisdiction
- void ab initio
- executing court's power to question award
- impartiality
- independence
