Arbitrators under Distress: The Fate of Unilateral Appointments –

Proddatur Cable TV DIGI Services Versus SITI Cable Network Limited

Brief facts of the case.

  • In this instance, the petitioner and the respondent had engaged into a distribution agreement that stipulated that any disagreements would be resolved by arbitration. Certain disagreements emerged between the parties over the amount to be paid to the petitioner under the Agreement. The petitioner claimed that its efforts to resolve the disagreement peacefully had failed, and as a result, the petitioner triggered the Agreement’s arbitration clause.
  • When the petitioner proposed an arbitrator, the respondent objected, citing the Agreement to claim its authority to pick an arbitrator unilaterally. As a result, an arbitrator for the respondent was selected, and the procedures began. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. on November 26, 2019, holding that the parties involved in the dispute, including the arbitrating parties, are unqualified to designate the arbitrator unilaterally.
  • The petitioner argued that the facts of the current case were completely covered by those of the Perkins case. As a result, the petitioner requested that the arbitrator not proceed with the arbitral proceedings because the arbiter’s authority had expired de jure. In response to the petitioner’s request, the arbitrator declared that she would continue the arbitral procedures unless a judicial order to end them was issued. As a result, the petitioner filed the current petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act, requesting a ruling that the respondent’s arbitrator’s mandate is terminated and that a new arbitrator be appointed.


  • Is it possible for either party to appoint a sole arbitrator unilaterally?
  • Is the decision applicable to pending arbitrations?


  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court had stated in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. that there could be two types of cases: one where the managing director is appointed as an arbitrator and the other where the managing director unilaterally elects the arbitrator. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that all parties who have a stake in the outcome of the case are disqualified to nominate the arbitrator unilaterally. On the basis of this principle, the Court concluded that the unilateral selection of an arbitrator by a party with a stake in the outcome of the judgement is illegal.
  • In this case, the Hon’ble High Court declared that the judgement in the Perkins case should be applied to all pending arbitrations. The arbitrator’s mandate is ended de jure under S.14 of the Arbitration Act once the Supreme Court has put down the law under S.12(5) of the Arbitration Act. As a result, the Perkins ruling will apply to ongoing cases as well.

Ask for funding

And would you mind providing us with your mobile number? We'll use this to let you know about any upcoming meetings.

SPVAmountDatePool Stage


LegalPay is not a registered broker-dealer, lender, law firm, and/or money transfer service and does not conduct any activity that would require such registration. LegalPay does not provide any kind of legal consultation or legal services. please read this document carefully before you access or use the service. by accessing, registering at the site, and or using LegalPay services you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth below. if you do not wish to be bound by these terms and conditions, please do not access or register for our site and/or engage in any activity conducted by LegalPay. if you violate any of these terms of service (which include by reference LegalPay’s privacy policy), or otherwise violate an agreement between you and us, LegalPay may, apart from initiating any legal proceedings, terminate your privileges, delete your profile and any content or information that you have posted on the site and/or prohibit you from using or accessing the service or the site (or any portion, aspect or feature of the service or the site), at any time in its sole discretion, with or without notice. It is stated that ‘LegalPay’ and ‘LLP (created for Special Purpose Vehicle)’ are two separate legal entities. The Investors will become limited Partners to the said LLP. LLP provides case management services to its clients. The Investors are requested to read the Risk Disclosure & Consent Agreement, LLP Agreement and Non-Disclosure Agreement thoroughly before making the investment in the listed Opportunities.

Partner with us

And would you mind providing us with your mobile number? We'll use this to let you know about any upcoming meetings.

Ready to invest in alternative-assets backed by litigation claims?