A critical issue is unfolding in arbitration law. What is the remedy when an arbitrator, who was unilaterally appointed by one party, passes a harsh ex-parte interim order—like attaching a property—before the other party is even heard?
Worse, what if the arbitrator, after his jurisdiction is formally challenged under Section 16, simply refuses to decide the challenge and lets the ex-parte attachment continue?
This is a patent illegality. The Supreme Court of India (in Perkins Eastman & TRF Ltd.) has declared that a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is de jure (by law) ineligible. Any order passed by such a tribunal is void ab initio—a legal nullity.
An arbitrator's first duty is to establish jurisdiction. They cannot use a coercive ex-parte order as leverage while ignoring a fundamental challenge to their own authority.
Our firm is at the forefront of this issue, actively challenging such a void order before the Hon'ble Madras High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act to protect our client's rights and assets.
#ArbitrationLaw
#IndianLaw
#MadrasHighCourt
#Jurisdiction
#UnilateralAppointment
#PerkinsEastman
#ArbitrationAndConciliationAct
#Section16
#Section37
#LegalUpdate
#ChennaiLawyer
#Advocate
#InterimOrder
#DueProcess