Welcome back to Caseon!
Log in today and discover expertly curated legal audios and how our AI-powered, tailor-made responses can empower you to navigate the complexities of your case.
Stay ahead of the curve—don’t miss out on the insights that could transform your legal practice!
As per the case facts there was a dispute over clauses in arbitration agreements that allowed one party to appoint the arbitrators without the other party's input This raised concerns
...about fairness and impartiality The appeal to the Supreme Court was to clarify if such unilateral appointment clauses were legally valid The question arose whether arbitration agreements allowing one party to unilaterally appoint the arbitration tribunal violate principles of independence impartiality and public policy Finally the Supreme Court held that agreements allowing one party to solely appoint the arbitration tribunal are generally concerning regarding fairness and may go against public policy The Court stated that such agreements would be carefully reviewed and if they do not ensure an independent and fair tribunal they would be declared invalid The Court emphasized that both parties must have equal say in appointing arbitrators to prevent future challenges
Bench
Applied Acts & Sections
Section 11
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 12
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 18
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 34
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 37
–The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Legal Notes
Add a Note....