Title: Unilateral appointment of Arbitrators: looking beyond Perkins
Author(s): Vyapak Desai, Shweta Sahu & Ritika Bansal (View Profile)
Journal: Indian Review of International Arbitration
Source: www.iriarb.com
Abstract:
The recent judgement of the Delhi HC in the case of Envirad brought to the foray the issue of
unilateral appointment of arbitrators. Previous judgements such as the Perkins judgement by
the SC and the Prodattur judgement by the Delhi HC have settled the position of law
regarding the unilateral appointment of arbitrators. However, while considering the
ineligibility of the arbitrators, the courts have gone beyond the scope of section 12(5) by
considering the ineligibility of the appointing authorities.
The courts have a markedly different stance regarding quasi-unilateral appointment
procedures allowing for the appointment of arbitrators even though such procedures don’t
guarantee the arbitrator’s impartiality. The article delves into the problems of a blanket ban
on arbitrators' unilateral appointments and considers courts’ contradictory stance on quasi-
unilateral appointment procedures. The authors also suggest alternatives such as Section 34
of the arbitration act, under which unilateral appointment of arbitrators may be prohibited.
Furthermore, the authors draw parallels with the jurisprudence of other countries while
considering the ban on unilateral appointments of arbitrators.
Cite this as: Vyapak Desai, Shweta Sahu & Ritika Bansal “Unilateral appointment of Arbitrators: looking beyond Perkins” 3 IRIArb (2023).
Keywords: Unilateral appointment, Perkins, Envirad, Judicial Precedents.
*The views expressed are of author(s) only.
