Perkins Eastman Judgement: Impact on the Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

  The judgement examined whether a case was made out for the exercise of power by the Court to make an appointment of an arbitrator, alongside the question of whether the Chairman and Managing Director were ineligible to nominate an arbitrator. Taken further, the Court expounded on whether a person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof, must not only be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but also must not be eligible to appoint anyone else as an arbitrator. The article will discuss the Perkins Eastman 1  judgement in context with other precedents on the matter of the appointment of a sole arbitrator. It has been held in HRD Corporation vs GAIL 1  that when a person directly falls under Schedule VII, ineligibility goes to the root of the appointment as per prohibition under Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII and such person lacks inherent jurisdiction. In Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited 2  held that a uni...