Alerts & Updates

190516 ELP Arbitration Weekly Update

Litigation, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution | May 16, 2019

In this week’s update, we analyse the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of SAP India Private Limited v. Cox & Kings Limited.

The judgment of the Court was delivered in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The question before the Court was, whether it was permissible in law for a party to fill up the vacancy caused on the resignation/recusal of an arbitrator appointed by the Court in exercise of the powers under Section 11(6) of the Act, after the same respondent had earlier refused to nominate an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

The court observed that once a party refuses to appoint an arbitrator at the initial stage, the same would result in complete forfeiture of the right to do so and in such a scenario, it would be the Court who would then appoint the arbitrator.

Related Articles

Alerts & Updates Litigation, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

ELP Arbitration Weekly Update 26 September 2018

SC Rules: When a dispute resolution clause provides that...

Alerts & Updates Litigation, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

ELP Arbitration Weekly Update 23 August 2018

In this week’s alert we update our readers on what has...

Alerts & Updates Litigation, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

ELP Arbitration Weekly Update 13 October 2018

In this week’s update, we analyse a recent judgment of...

Alerts & Updates Litigation, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

ELP Arbitration Update 23 August 2018

This week, we have analyzed the Bombay High Court’s...