AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Baug, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the arbitrator was ineligible to have been appointed as per entry 15 in the VII schedule of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There was no express agreement of waiver regarding the ineligibility, as required by the proviso under sub-section (5) in section 12. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 755, paragraph-20 for declaration of law to be that express waiver must be only if made subsequent to dispute having arisen between the parties. He submits further, the suit, in which the arbitrator was engaged, has as its subject matter the mine. Disputes in the reference are also on subject matter of the mine.
Mr. Banerji, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 and on query from Court he submits, by clause-6 in agreement dated 31st December, 2009, parties had agreed to arbitration by the sole arbitrator. Mr. Banerji will be heard on 8th March, 2022.
List on 8th March, 2022 along with W.P.(C) no.40132 of 2021.
…………………………