CLOSE
18 June 2021| Monica Khanna & others. v. Mohit Khanna & another | JR Midha J | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3421
The arbitration clause in a family settlement agreement of June 2020 identified by name a sole arbitrator. But when the disputes arose, the petitioners applied to the court under Section 11 ACA to appoint an ‘independent’ arbitrator. They said that the named arbitrator was ineligible under Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule ACA because he was a respondents’ consultant, a director and a shareholder in a company in which a respondent was also a director.
The respondents’ case was that the arbitrator was named at the insistence of the petitioner and he knew the entire family for the last 40 years. So, the petitioner could not wriggle out of the arbitration agreement after agreeing to his name.
The court did not make any specific analysis on the de jure ineligibility or the applicability of Section 12 (5) ACA on the facts. It said that “on careful consideration of the rival contentions, this Court has serious doubt to the independence of the named arbitrator.” Another arbitrator was appointed.
Access the judgment here.