Justice DY Chandrachud: Young Lawyers Make Excellent Arbitrators Of High Integrity

CASE BACKGROUND

• The bench headed by justice D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing the matter in which the parties claimed that the arbitrator, a former High Court judge, kept adjourning and extending out the proceedings at every hearing, burdening both parties with ever-increasing arbitration expenditures.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• The following directives were also passed by the bench:

1. The proceedings will resume from where they were left off by the previous Arbitrator, and the arbitral decision will be delivered after hearing final arguments based on the evidence already on the record.
2. In the absence of further evidence by either party, the record before the previous Arbitrator shall be submitted to the Arbitrator appointed in accordance with the orders and shall form the basis for the final submissions and award thereon.
3. Because the arbitral procedures have progressed to this point, the arbitrator's fees have been set at a lump sum of Rs 15 lakhs.
4. The amount will be divided between the contesting parties: the respondents will carry 50% of the total, while the claimants will pay the remaining 50% in an exact ratio.
5. The former Arbitrator, whose appointment has been substituted, shall transmit the records and papers to the new Arbitrator appointed in accordance with the said directions.
6. There'll be no reimbursement of fees already paid to the former Arbitrator, and no additional fees, costs, or expenses will be paid.

CASE RELEVANCE

• On Friday, the Honorable Apex Court observed that it may be in the best interests of alternative dispute resolution if young attorneys are chosen as arbitrators, who are not only professional in their work but also willing to work for a low fee.
• On the demand of the parties they represent, the bench headed by Justices Chandrachud and Shah ordered that, in place of the Arbitrator assigned by the Honorable Supreme Court's order of April 24, 2017, all disputes and disagreements between the parties be transferred to the sole arbitration of Justice Naresh H.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE?