ELP-Arbitration weekly update-Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another v. HSCC (India) Ltd

This week we analyze a landmark case – Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. In the present case, a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) was filed by a consortium of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Edifice Consultants Private Limited (Applicants) before the SC seeking appointment of an sole arbitrator. Pertinently, in terms of the applicable arbitration clause, HSCC (India) Ltd.’s (Respondent) Managing Director was to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator of his choice and accordingly, a sole arbitrator had already been appointed by the Respondent.Placing its reliance on TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, the SC held that the essence of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 was that a person having an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint the sole arbitrator. It was further held by the SC that where only one party had the right to appoint a sole arbitrator, such party’s choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting out the course of dispute resolution. In view of such findings, the appointment of the sole arbitrator by the Respondent was annulled and in exercise of its powers under Section 11(6) of the Act, a fresh sole arbitrator was appointed by the SC.Trust you will find this an interesting read.