Latest News

Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd.

Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. 

Brief Facts

The agreement went into between the gatherings contained Clause 24 with respect to question goal which enabled the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent organization to delegate a sole mediator. Appropriately, the Chairman and Managing Director were called upon to delegate a sole judge as far as said Clause 24. Be that as it may, no appointment of a mediator was made inside thirty days however a letter was tended to by the Chief General Manager of the respondent selecting the sole authority.

Contentions raised by the Applicant

Depending on the choices of the Supreme Court in Walter Bau AG, Legal Successor of the Original Contractor, Dyckerhoff and Widmann, A.G. v. City Corporation of Greater Mumbai and (2015) 3 SCC 800 and TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377, the Applicant battled that the appointment cycle pondered in Clause 24 gave total watchfulness to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent to make an appointment of a referee of his decision, the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent would normally be keen on the result of choice in regard of the debate. It was fought that the essential component of fair-mindedness would, in this way, be obviously missing in such a cycle.

Issues Raised

Two issues were raised under the watchful eye of the Court. (I) Whether the mediation would be an International Commercial Arbitration or not. (ii) Whether an individual not qualified to go about as an Arbitrator can delegate any other person as an Arbitrator?

Findings of the Court

Depending on Larsen and Toubro Limited SCOMI Engineering BHD Arbitration Petition (C) No. 28 of 2017, the Court addressed the primary issue in the positive and held that since the lead individual from the Consortium organization for example Candidate No.1 is an Architectural Firm having its enlisted office in New York, necessities of Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration Act are fulfilled and the assertion in the current case would be an "International Commercial Arbitration" It was additionally seen that if there are legitimate questions with regards to the freedom and unbiasedness of the individual assigned, and if different conditions warrant the appointment of an autonomous referee by disregarding the technique endorsed, such appointment can be made by the Court.

The Court additionally considered the issue that emerged further for example regardless of whether the force can be practiced by the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act when the appointment of a referee has been made. The Court depended on Walter Bau AG and held that except if the appointment of the authority is ex facie legitimate and such appointment fulfills the Court practicing locale under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acknowledgment of such appointment as a fait accompli to suspend the purview under Section 11(6) can't be countenanced in law.

In conclusion, it was seen that the goals of spurring sound assertion climate interest that the moment application merits acknowledgment. With these perceptions, the court canceled the impact of the letter gave by the respondent for the appointment of the judge.



This article does not intend to hurt the sentiments of any individual, community, sect, or religion, etcetera. This article is based purely on the author’s personal opinion and views in the exercise of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(A) and other related laws being enforced in India for the time being.

  • Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd.


All Latest News