CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION
VS
M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY…
CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION V. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML
(JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY 2024 INSC 857 (8 November 2024)
Whether a person ineligible to be an arbitrator under the seventh schedule of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) can mandate the other party
choose an arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators curated by them. (ii) Whether the
principle of equal treatment of parties applies when appointing arbitrators. (iii)
Whether the unilateral appointment of arbitrators by the government entity in a
public-private contract violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT
I have had the benefit of the exhaustive and erudite judgment of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud. I have already given reasons for my decision. I find it necessary to indicate certain
issues about the perspective and the final conclusion.
At the outset, I reiterate the necessary distinction between the duty of the parties to arbitration
agreement to constitute an independent arbitral tribunal and the duty of the arbitrator to act
judicially. In this case, we are concerned with the former and not about the duty of the arbitrator.
If an arbitration agreement is considered by the court as not enabling constitution of an
independent and impartial tribunal, any submission that the said agreement is a binding contract, or
it is in exercise of party 41 autonomy is not tenable as such an agreement will be against public
policy and as such not an enforceable contract
