Supreme Court Benchmark on Neutral Arbitrator Appointments
Parties: Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.
The dispute arose over whether an authority interested in the outcome of an agreement can unilaterally nominate a sole arbitrator. While originating in a commercial dispute, the principles directly governed institutional retail lending and credit card agreements where banks historically named internal advocates or retained counsels.
The Supreme Court ruled that a party who has an interest in the dispute or outcome of proceedings is legally disentitled not only from acting as an arbitrator under Section 12(5), but also from unilaterally appointing an arbitrator. The Court held that neutrality is the cornerstone of arbitration. For retail banks, this mandates appointing sole arbitrators through independent arbitral institutions, mutual consent, or High Court roster nominations to prevent awards from being nullified under Section 34.