Topic
A unilateral arbitrator appointment violating Section 12(5) renders award non-est, the Delhi HC held, requiring setting aside despite Section 34 challenge, meaning flawed appointments cannot be cured partially, affecting parties relying on awards.
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a party may initiate a new arbitration under Section 11(6) even after an award is set aside, provided the underlying arbitration agreement is intact and no remand was ordered. This reinforces the separability doctrine and prevents parties from being locked out of arbitration due to procedural technicalities, strengthening commercial certainty in contract enforcement.
Madras High Court upholds arbitral award, clarifying that courts cannot interfere under Section 34 merely because another view is possible on the evidence.