Shivansh Mani Sharma, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism is a viable frontier in laws related to dispute resolution. They have already proved their merit as being an efficient and foolproof substitute to court proceedings. Arbitration is one of the many ways parties involved in a dispute can choose to resolve their issues. The goal of an Arbitration proceeding is not to favour one side or the other. The main objective of an arbitration proceeding is to obtain a fair solution to a particular dispute. In order to do this properly one of the most important steps is to have an arbitrator who is impartial and unbiased. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 is an exhaustive legislation that provides for the appointment of unbiased arbitrator/s. Yet more often than not, disputes arise on the issue of appointment of the arbitrator. The following is a note on a recent judgement made by the Delhi High Court wherein a very crucial issue was raised. The issue was with respect to the appointment of a sole arbitrator unilaterally by a single party involved in the dispute. The importance of the issue lies in the fact that the Arbitration Agreement entered into between the parties, involved in the dispute, provided for a clause wherein one particular party had the right to unilaterally nominate an arbitrator in case of failure of mutual correspondences between the parties while appointing an arbitrator. The Delhi High Court assessed the arguments put forward by both the parties and observed that the essence of an arbitration proceeding lies in the fact that the arbitrator/s must be unrelated to the parties. Thus, this case provides an important observation made by the court which helps improving the efficacy of arbitration as a viable dispute resolution mechanism.
KEYWORDS: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration Agreement, Mutual Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Unbiased Arbitrator.
