Can a person ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator nominate another person as sole arbitrator?
Coram: Manoj Misra
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 14(2), 12(5) — Fifth Schedule — Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator — Termination of mandate — Arbitration Act, 1996 — s.12(5) — Fifth Schedule — Ineligible person cannot nominate arbitrator — Held: An arbitration clause letting the Managing Director of one party unilaterally nominate the sole arbitrator is invalid, for a person himself ineligible under s.12(5) read with the Fifth Schedule cannot nominate another. Unilateral appointments raise justifiable doubts as to independence and deny equal participation. Arbitration Act, 1996 — s.14(2) — Mandate terminated — Substitute arbitrator referred — Held further: This principle, settled in TRF and Perkins and affirmed by the Constitution Bench in CORE v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML, governs the case. The mandate of the arbitrator so nominated was terminated and the matter referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for a substitute. Appeals allowed.
Can a person ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator nominate another person as sole arbitrator?
No. Following TRF Ltd. and the Constitution Bench in CORE, the Court held that if a person is himself ineligible by operation of law to be appointed as arbitrator, he cannot nominate another as sole arbitrator either, since his own disqualification taints the nomination.
Why is a clause allowing the Managing Director to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator invalid?
Such a clause gives rise to justifiable doubts about the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator and deprives the other party of equal participation in the appointment process, contrary to the scheme of Section 12(5) read with the Fifth Schedule to the 1996 Act.
What is the effect of the Constitution Bench decision in CORE on unilateral appointment clauses?
The Constitution Bench in CORE affirmed and settled the law laid down in TRF Ltd. and Perkins Eastman, conclusively holding that unilateral appointment clauses are impermissible as they undermine arbitral independence and impartiality.
What relief did the Court grant on finding the appointment clause invalid?
The Court allowed the appeals, terminated the mandate of the sole arbitrator nominated by the Managing Director, and referred the matter to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for nomination of a suitable arbitrator.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from an order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 whereby the petition(s) (i.e., O.M.P. (T) (COMM) No.101 of 2017 and O.M.P. (T) (COMM) No.105 of 2017) filed by the appellant, under Section 14(2) of the Nirmala Negi 1 The High Court Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962, for termination of the mandate of the sole arbitrator appointed by the Managing Director of the respondents was rejected.
Arbitration agreement under which the sole arbitrator was nominated by the Managing Director of the respondents reads thus:
“9.03 – Settlement of Disputes- Any dispute arising of this sub-contract work shall be settled in terms of this work order. In case of failure to settle amicably, the dispute shall be finally resolved in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Sole Arbitrator to be nominated (including nomination of replacement of Arbitrator, if necessitated by vacancy of the post caused by any reason whatsoever) by the Managing Director of the First Party, New Delhi. The venue shall be New Delhi. This Work Order is governed as per the Law of India and the jurisdiction of New Delhi Courts shall apply.”
By relying upon the judgment of this Court in TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd.3, petitions were filed before the High Court to terminate the mandate of the sole arbitrator nominated by the Managing Director in terms of the aforesaid arbitration clause and for appointment of an arbitrator by the Court. 2 1996 Act
The High Court rejected the petitions against which these appeals have been filed.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that now there is a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Central Organization for Railway Electrification ( for short ‘CORE’) vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company[^4], which has affirmed the law laid down in TRF (supra) and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 5, declaring that a clause which allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the other party in appointment process of arbitrators.
Accordingly, it has been prayed that the appeals be allowed, the mandate of the sole arbitrator nominated by the Managing Director in terms of Clause 9.03 be terminated and an arbitrator be appointed.
The learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the instant case is squarely covered by Constitution Bench decision of this Court in ‘CORE (supra).
We have considered the submissions.
In TRF (supra), this Court had held that if a person cannot be appointed an arbitrator being ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as a sole arbitrator. The Constitution Bench has upheld the view taken in TRF (supra). In such circumstances, since managing director of a company would be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator in view of Section 12 (5) read with paragraph 5 in the Fifth Schedule to the 1996 Act, he would be ineligible to nominate a sole arbitrator. Accordingly, we allow the appeals and terminate the mandate of the sole arbitrator nominated by the Managing Director of the respondents. In consequence, we refer the matter to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for nominating a suitable Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute inter se the parties.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. …................................... J. (Manoj Misra) ................................................J. (Ujjal Bhuyan) New Delhi; August 18, 2025
Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does a spouse's persistent refusal of sexual relations amount to mental cruelty?
2026 INSC 620 · Supreme Court of India
What relief may an election petitioner claim under Section 44-E of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959?
2026 INSC 243 · Supreme Court of India
Must the question whether a dishonest intention existed at the time of the promise always be left to trial, or can a High Court decide it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
2026 INSC 265 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy