<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<root>
    <author>ENA</author>
    <category>Sectors</category>
    <date>2024-11-11 18:12:02</date>
    <fulldesc>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Delhi, Nov 11 (KNN)&lt;/strong&gt; In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has prohibited Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) from unilaterally appointing arbitrators in disputes with private contractors.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, held that while PSUs can maintain panels of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel private parties to select arbitrators exclusively fr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:12px&quot;&gt;0&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;m these panels.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a majority judgment emphasising that the principle of equal treatment must apply throughout arbitration proceedings, including the appointment stage.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The Court determined that unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The majority judgment established several key principles, including the prohibition of clauses that allow one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, as such arrangements raise justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's independence and impartiality. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The Court also ruled that in three-member arbitration panels, requiring the other party to select an arbitrator fr0m a curated panel violates the principle of equal participation.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;In a partial dissent, Justice Hrishikesh Roy emphasised party autonomy and held that unilateral appointments should not be invalidated automatically. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;Justice PS Narasimha, while agreeing with the majority, highlighted that courts must ensure arbitration agreements inspire confidence, noting that unilateral appointments may violate public policy.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The ruling will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments made after the judgment date, particularly affecting three-member tribunals. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;This decision resolves conflicting precedents fr0m previous cases, including TRF Ltd. v Energo Engineering Projects Ltd (2017) and Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) (2020), providing clarity on the appointment process in arbitration proceedings involving public sector entities.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;(KNN Bureau)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
</fulldesc>
    <id>39877</id>
    <link>https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/sectors/supreme-court-bars-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-by-psus</link>
    <pubDate>2024-11-11 18:12:02</pubDate>
    <source>knnindia.co.in</source>
    <title>Supreme Court Bars Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments By PSUs</title>
</root>
