21 September 2021 | Century Metals Recyling Limited and Another v. URGO Capital Limited and Others | AP 351 of 2021| Rajesh Bindal ACJ | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2506

The agreement provided that the dispute shall be decided by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the lender. The lender unilaterally referred the dispute to Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution Excellence (CADRE), which appointed the arbitrator. The petitioner applied for appointment of another arbitrator on Perkins grounds also stating that though it was not averse to an institutional arbitration, the forum could not be chosen unilaterally by the respondent, an interested party.

Appointment, held, was hit by Perkins because “the respondent did not have any right even to refer the dispute to CADRE for appointment of an arbitrator for the reason that the respondent is a party interested in the outcome of the dispute. It will not matter if the dispute is referred to a sole arbitrator or an institution as it is charting the course for dispute resolution.”

An argument relating to the power of an arbitral institution based on Section 11 (11) ACA was rejected because the sub-section is not notified.

Read the decision here.