Topic
The Delhi HC held a unilateral arbitrator appointment clause violates Section 18’s equal treatment principle, rendering it unenforceable. It underscores the need for equal treatment in arbitration clauses, affecting future unilateral appointment agreements.
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though the respondent did not appear, holding that the court’s inquiry is confined to whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie exists. This clarifies that a party’s absence does not bar appointment and limits judicial scrutiny at this stage, affecting contractors and respondents in arbitration disputes.
The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause remains enforceable even when a party does not appear, and it may appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6). This allows loan-assignment disputes to proceed in arbitration without delay, affecting lenders and assignees.
Delhi High Court upholds direct arbitrator appointment by mutual consent, eliminating the need for Section 11 court intervention. The ruling reinforces party autonomy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, allowing parties to streamline dispute resolution while converting Section 9 interim relief applications into Section 17 arbitral tribunal orders.