The Apex Court Answers Whether An Officer Of A Department Can Be The Sole Arbitrator In The Arbitration Proceedings After Retirement

NAME OF THE CASE AND CORAM

• Case Name: M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co v. State of UP
• Coram: Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna
• Citation: LL 2021 SC 499

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The mandate of an arbitrator after retirement was questioned followed by the conduct or the apparent misconduct of those proceedings.
• The Supreme court held that there was enough legal infirmness regarding the arbitration which was after retirement.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• A question, which asked whether once an officer of the department who was appointed as an arbitrator still had a mandate to continue the arbitration proceedings even after he took retirement.
• The question further elapsed into the conduct of those proceedings which can be said to be committed by misconduct by a sole arbitrator.
• It was held by the Supreme Court that the judgements under the appeal of the High Court were unfounded in law and ordered that the sole arbitrator behaved inappropriately in continuing the arbitration proceedings after his departure retired.
• The High Court's award was quashed and the award issued by the Sole Arbitrator on 01.08.1998 was reinstated.

CASE RELEVANCE

• In ruling on an appeal under the Arbitration Act 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that a departmental officer, appointed as an arbitrator, may continue to preside over the arbitration proceedings even after retirement.
• The Apex Court, discussing the provisions of the 1940 Arbitration Act and the Arbitration Agreement, found that there was a legal susceptibility in the arbitrator who continued the arbitration after his retirement.

Hope you enjoyed reading this. You may now be able to answer the following questions, let us know in the comments section

• Do you know what is the job of an arbitrator?
• Do you agree that there is a legal infirmity about such retirement?