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

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.

Read More