CLOSE
10 December 2021 | Era Infra Engineering Limited v. Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. | OMP (T) (Comm.) 128 of 2021 |Suresh Kumar Kait J | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5316
Invoking the Perkins rule, the Delhi High Court terminated the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed by the respondent in 2017. The petitioner contended that it came to know later in 2018 that the arbitrator was on the panel of the respondent. The court noted that the “petitioner cited various reasons for not being able to pursue the case thereafter”.
An independent arbitrator was appointed, disregarding the panel of 11 names of the respondent.
Read the decision here.
Categories: Appointment of Arbitrators | Bharat Broadband | Broad Based Panel | De Jure Ineligibility | Failure or Impossibility to Act | Fifth Schedule | Grounds for Challenge | HRD Corporation | Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrator | Party Appointed Arbitrator | Party Appointed Sole Arbitrator | Perkins | Section 11 ACA | Section 12 (5) ACA | Section 12 ACA | Section 14 ACA | Section 15 ACA | Seventh Schedule | Sole Arbitrator | Termination of Mandate and Substitution of Arbitrator | TRF | Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator | Voestalpine