Bombay High Court Reaffirms Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Objections. Court rejects review petition questioning the appointment of a sole arbitrator, emphasizing party autonomy and procedural fairness.

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court dealt with a review petition challenging the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized the significance of party autonomy and dismissed the review application, affirming its previous order of appointing a sole arbitrator. The petitioner, Global Zone Sanitory Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., sought to retract its initial agreement for a sole arbitrator, claiming a three-member tribunal was more appropriate. The Court held that since the petitioner had earlier expressed consent to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Court, the review was unfounded. The court also imposed costs on the petitioner for delaying the arbitration proceedings.

Parties Involved:

Petitioner (Review Applicant): Global Zone Sanitory Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Respondent: Advent Infracon

Timeline:

May 25, 2022: Respondent invoked arbitration and proposed an arbitrator. December 19, 2022: Petitioner responded after seven months but rejected the proposed arbitrator. February 27, 2023: Respondent filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. June 20, 2024: Court appointed a sole arbitrator after the petitioner did not engage in the proceedings. September 13, 2024: Court delivered judgment rejecting the review petition.

Dispute:

Petitioner initially agreed to arbitration by a sole arbitrator, provided it was court-appointed. Later, the petitioner argued for a three-member tribunal, contradicting its earlier stance.

Court’s Key Observations:

The petitioner forfeited the right to nominate an arbitrator by delaying participation. The petitioner's inconsistent stance delayed the arbitration process, which is contrary to the principles of fair and efficient dispute resolution. The Court emphasized that party autonomy cannot be used as a tool to frustrate proceedings.

Judgment:

The review petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the appointment of a sole arbitrator as originally agreed. Costs of ₹1,25,000 were imposed on the petitioner for delaying the proceedings. Acts and Sections Discussed: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6): Relates to the appointment of arbitrators by the Court when the parties fail to agree. Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that a party that delays or frustrates arbitration proceedings forfeits the right to challenge the appointment process. The petitioner's inconsistent stance—first agreeing to a sole arbitrator and later demanding a three-member tribunal—was seen as a deliberate tactic to delay arbitration. The court held that party autonomy is fundamental, but it cannot be misused to disrupt the efficient resolution of commercial disputes.

Subject:

#Appointment of Arbitrator#Arbitration #CommercialDispute #PartyAutonomy #SoleArbitrator #ReviewPetition