In absence of consent in writing from Petitioners, appointment of Arbitrator itself is considered as non est in law and Arbitrator is disqualified to commence Arbitral proceedings - Failure on part of Petitioners to challenge appointment of Arbitrator under Section 13 would not disqualify them to challenge same under Section 34

Citation

2023 (2) MWN (Civil) 165 (Mad)

2023 Live Law (mad) 135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No.257 of 2021, Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No.209 of 2022Apnl 20, 2023

Prime Store, rep. by its Partner, S. Kaarthi, No.77, New Market Street, Tiruppur-641 604; S. Kaarthi; Padma Sivalingam; Shruthi Kaarthi.                                  ...Petitioner

Vs. 

Sugam Vanijya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.11B, Sy No.40/9, Devasandra Industrial Area, 2nd Stage, K.R. Puram, Hobli, Bangalore-560 048; K.Sivalingam; SCM Silks Pvt. Ltd., No.77, New Marker Street, Tiruppur-641 604...Respondent

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 13 & 34- Arbitral Award Validity of Petitioners sought to set aside Arbitral Award passed by sole Arbitrator-Failure on part of Petitioners to challenge appointment of Arbitrator under Section 13 would not disqualify them to challenge same under Section 34- No consent was provided by Petitioners and therefore, in absence of consent in writing from Petitioners, appointment of Arbitrator itself is considered as non est in law and Arbitrator is disqualified to commence Arbitral proceedings - Therefore, Award passed by Arbitrator is liable to be set aside - Petitions allowed. [Paras 57, 62 to 65]CASES REFERRED