#Unilateral Appointment

Appointments of arbitrators made unilaterally before the 23 Oct 2015 amendment are not void, provided the arbitration agreement either names the arbitrator or permits one party to appoint. Only appointments lacking any contractual basis are set aside. This clarifies the enforceability of older arbitral clauses for parties and courts handling award execution.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that unilateral arbitrator appointments under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are void ab initio, setting aside over 250 arbitral awards. The court excluded the period from arbitration invocation to the judgment date for limitation purposes, allowing parties to initiate fresh proceedings.

Karnataka High Court rules that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by an interested party violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the arbitral award void. The judgment confirms the retrospective application of the 2015 amendments to agreements executed post-23.10.2015, reinforcing impartiality in commercial arbitration.

Bombay High Court reinforces that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, setting aside awards and permitting fresh arbitration while excluding the limitation period from the original invocation date. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's precedent in Bhadra International, ensuring procedural fairness in arbitration proceedings.

The Bombay High Court has set aside multiple arbitral awards where the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, affirming that such appointments are void from the outset under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s position in Bhadra International, ensuring parties cannot circumvent neutrality requirements even after award issuance - impacting corporate contracts, construction disputes, and commercial arbitration strategies nationwide.

The Bombay High Court has declared all arbitral awards void where arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, affirming the Supreme Court’s position in Bhadra International. Crucially, it permits parties to initiate fresh arbitration by excluding the entire period of the invalid proceeding from the limitation period, offering a rare procedural lifeline to claimants caught in defective appointments.

The Bombay High Court has held that a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator renders the entire arbitration void ab initio, and this defect cannot be cured even at the execution stage. This ruling extends the Supreme Court’s Bhadra International precedent to execution proceedings, making it clear that parties cannot bypass impartiality safeguards by waiting until enforcement - a critical warning to corporate litigants and arbitrators alike.

Bombay High Court reinforces Supreme Court precedent by invalidating arbitral awards where arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, holding such appointments void ab initio under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Parties might now face fresh arbitration proceedings, with limitation periods adjusted to exclude the voided process duration.

Bombay HC rules that an arbitral award is invalid if the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by one party, aligning with the Supreme Court's Perkins Eastman precedent. The court set aside the award solely on this ground, emphasizing procedural fairness under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Bombay High Court ruled that participation in arbitration proceedings does not constitute a valid waiver of objections to a unilateral arbitrator appointment under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Only an express written agreement can override the statutory bar, reinforcing the need for mutual consent in arbitrator selection. This decision impacts businesses relying on arbitration clauses, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural fairness.

Bombay High Court holds that unilateral appointment of arbitrator renders award void ab initio, even at execution stage, with limitation excluded for fresh proceedings.

Madras High Court upholds validity of arbitration award where MCCI, a historic institution, appointed the arbitrator per parties' agreement, clarifying unilateral appointment jurisprudence.

Bombay High Court holds that unilateral appointment of arbitrator renders arbitral award void-ab-initio, even at execution stage, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.