The unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is held to be void ab initio in light of various important decisions by the Supreme Court such as TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd; Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Limited.
In the recent case of McLeod Russel India Limited & Anr. v. Aditya Birla Finance Limited & Ors, the Calcutta High Court departed from the above decisions and held that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator was valid.
In this article published by Mondaq, our Principal Associate Sohil Shah and Associate Nidhi Chaudhary opines that the High Court should not have deviated from the well settled ratio laid down by the Supreme Court because principally, no party can be allowed to unilaterally charter the course of the arbitration.
Read the full legal analysis below: