Arbitration In IndiaAppointment not unilateral if the other party did not take any action in spite of being served notice

St Frosso Shipping Corporation Petitioner v. Eastern Multitrans Logistics Pvt Ltd

Court – Telangana High Court

Citation – EXEP.No.4 of 2022

Date – 27.06.2025

The Hon’ble Telangana High Court has held that the appointment of a sole arbitrator by one party cannot be termed unilateral if the other party did not take any action in spite of being served notice for it.

The Court held,

“58. As stated above, the respondent has chosen not to bring the objection with regard to unilateral appointment within section 48(1)(d) of the 1996 Act but has instead resorted to section 48(2)(b) of the 1996 Act on the enforcement being contrary to the public policy of India. Notably, section 48(1) puts the onus entirely on the party who objects to the enforcement of a Foreign Award to prove that any of the five grounds under section 48(1) or the two grounds under section 48(2) was present at the material point of time for refusal of enforcement. The burden of proof is thus squarely on the respondent to show by documentary evidence that the Sole Arbitrator was unilaterally-appointed. The Arbitration Agreement/ Clause, taken together with the admitted failure on the part of the respondent to appoint its Arbitrator, despite the petitioner’s Notice to the respondent in that regard, demolishes the objection. This Court is hence of the considered view that the ground of unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator for refusing enforcement of Foreign Award is totally without any substance. The respondent’s argument is thus rejected.“

– Team AMLEGALS

For any queries or feedback, feel free to reach out to rohit.lalwani@amlegals.com