PRO TIP when you face a Business Conflict

Craft Clear Agreements: When an agreement is reached, ensure it's crystal clear. Clearly articulate the terms, responsibilities, and consequences. Clarity prevents future disputes and lays a solid foundation for cooperation.

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us

Share this page

Delhi High Court: Restrictive Arbitrator Panel Challenged for Unilateral Appointment

In a groundbreaking decision, the High Court of Delhi has recently ruled that parties involved in arbitration cannot select arbitrators from a limited panel maintained solely by the opposing party. This restrictive practice, according to the court, infringes upon the fundamental principles of impartiality and fairness in the arbitration process. The case in question, ''Overnite Express v. DMRC,'' has significant implications for the arbitration landscape in India. This article delves into the background of the case, the court's ruling, and its potential impact on arbitration proceedings in the country.
Background of the Case:

The dispute in ''Overnite Express v. DMRC'' arose between Overnite Express, a prominent logistics company, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), a government entity responsible for the city's mass transit system. The parties had entered into a contract that included an arbitration clause to resolve any future disagreements. However, the contract allowed DMRC to maintain a panel of five pre-selected arbitrators, from which Overnite Express had to choose a single arbitrator if disputes arose.

Ruling of the Court:

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the provisions of the contract, the High Court of Delhi delivered a seminal judgment that could reshape arbitration practices in the country. The key aspects of the court's ruling are as follows:

  • Unilateral Appointment Concerns: The court observed that the contractual clause allowing DMRC to maintain a narrow panel of arbitrators, from which Overnite Express had to select one, effectively amounted to the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by DMRC. This raised concerns about potential bias and partiality, as the choice of arbitrator was heavily skewed in favor of DMRC.
  • Impairment of Impartiality: The court emphasized the paramount importance of impartiality in arbitration. For an arbitration process to be fair and just, it is essential that both parties have equal and unbiased access to the selection of arbitrators. The restrictive panel imposed by DMRC undermined this principle and had the potential to create doubts regarding the arbitrator's impartiality, thereby compromising the integrity of the entire arbitration process.
  • Freedom of Arbitrator Selection: The court highlighted the significance of maintaining a wide pool of arbitrators to ensure that both parties have the freedom to choose an arbitrator who is independent, competent, and neutral. By limiting the options to a select panel, the parties' right to select an arbitrator of their choice was unduly curtailed.
  • Public Policy Considerations: The judgment also touched upon the aspect of public policy, as impartial arbitration is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system. Any contractual provision that restricts the appointment of an independent arbitrator undermines this fundamental principle and is contrary to public policy.
Implications and Significance:

The ruling of the High Court of Delhi in the ''Overnite Express v. DMRC'' case carries significant implications for the arbitration landscape in India. Some of the major implications are as follows:

  • Safeguarding Impartiality: The court's decision reinforces the principle of impartiality in arbitration, ensuring that both parties have an equal say in the selection of arbitrators. This move will bolster confidence in the arbitration process and increase its credibility as a reliable means of dispute resolution.
  • Reevaluating Arbitration Clauses: In the wake of this judgment, parties involved in commercial contracts with arbitration clauses may need to reconsider their approach to appointing arbitrators. Clauses that limit the pool of arbitrators or allow unilateral appointment by one party may face challenges in light of this ruling.
  • Minimizing Biases: By eliminating the potential for biased arbitrator appointments, the court's decision could lead to more equitable outcomes in arbitration proceedings. It ensures that the arbitrator's decision-making remains unbiased and free from any undue influence.
  • Encouraging Mediation and Negotiation: With the assurance of an impartial arbitration process, parties might be more inclined to opt for arbitration over litigation. The efficiency and confidentiality of arbitration, coupled with the guarantee of impartiality, may encourage parties to resolve disputes amicably through mediation and negotiation.
  • A Shift Towards Institutional Arbitration: The judgment may also lead to a rise in institutional arbitration, where recognized arbitration institutions maintain panels of diverse and qualified arbitrators. Institutional arbitration is perceived to be more reliable and neutral, especially in complex commercial disputes.

The High Court of Delhi's ruling in ''Overnite Express v. DMRC'' is a milestone in the realm of arbitration law in India. By rejecting the notion of restrictive panels maintained by one party, the court has reaffirmed the importance of impartiality and fairness in the arbitration process.

This judgment sends a clear message that arbitration clauses should be carefully crafted to protect the rights of all parties involved and uphold the principles of justice and equity.

As a result of this ruling, arbitration in India is likely to witness a transformation, with more focus on ensuring a diverse and neutral pool of arbitrators. Parties to commercial contracts may need to review and revise their arbitration clauses to align with the court's stance on impartiality. Additionally, this ruling may lead to greater trust in the arbitration process, thereby encouraging businesses to embrace arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution.

The ''Overnite Express v. DMRC'' case serves as a crucial reminder of the essence of impartiality in arbitration. As the Indian arbitration landscape evolves, this landmark judgment will undoubtedly leave a lasting impact, paving the way for fairer and more transparent dispute resolution mechanisms.


''Overnite Express v. DMRC,'' High Court of Delhi’’.