Justice CS Dias analysed the amended provisions of the Act and various precedents of the Supreme Court and arrived at the conclusion that there are two modes of appointing a sole arbitrator in order to ensure neutrality for the arbitration as well as the arbitration selection process.
“.. it is abundantly clear that the law mandates that there should be neutrality not only for the Arbitrator but also in the arbitrator selection process as well. Thus, in the post-2015 amendment era, there are only two modes of appointment of a sole Arbitrator:
(i) by express agreement in writing between the parties, post the dispute, agreeing to waive the applicability of Section 12 of the Act or,
(ii) by order of appointment by the High Court under Section 11 of the Act,” the judgment said.
The Court said that if the appointment of a sole arbitrator is made other than by the above two methods, the appointment would be ex facie bad and in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
In such cases, the arbitrator would become de jure ineligible to act as an arbitrator by the operation of law, the Court added.
Source: Barandbench
