In the Perkins Eastman case, HSCC (India) Ltd. – a government entity – had reserved the right for its Managing Director to appoint the sole arbitrator. When conflicts emerged over the AIIMS Mangalagiri project, HSCC exercised this power, leaving the architectural consortium with no say in who would decide their fate.

Think about it: Would you trust a referee chosen entirely by your opponent?

The consortium approached the Supreme Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator. But HSCC argued they had already appointed someone – case closed.

This raised a fundamental question that had plagued Indian arbitration for years:

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra, had to navigate this complex terrain where law, fairness, and practical reality intersected.

The Court's reasoning was elegant in its simplicity:

"A person who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator also cannot appoint an arbitrator."

This single sentence dismantled decades of unfair practice. The logic was unassailable:

• If you can't be the judge (due to conflict of interest)

• You can't choose the judge either

The Court clarified that it has the power to intervene under Section 11 unless the appointment is genuinely valid and independent.

The Ripple Effect: A Judgment That Keeps Giving

The Perkins Eastman decision didn't end with the judgment. In 2022, when the consortium sought to enforce their arbitral award worth crores, the Delhi High Court proceedings showed how this case continues to shape arbitration practice.

The enforcement proceedings revealed another crucial aspect: even after winning the right to a fair arbitrator, parties still need robust legal frameworks to ensure awards are honored.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Fair Arbitration

This judgment sends a clear message to the international business community: India is serious about fair, efficient dispute resolution.

For businesses operating in India or considering Indian partnerships, the Perkins Eastman precedent provides assurance that:

• . Arbitration agreements will be interpreted fairly

• . No party can manipulate the arbitrator selection process

• Indian courts will protect the integrity of arbitration proceedings

Conclusion: Justice, Fairness, and the Path Forward

The Perkins Eastman judgment reminds us that sometimes the most profound changes come from addressing seemingly simple inequities. By ensuring that arbitrator appointment is fair, the Supreme Court didn't just resolve one dispute – it strengthened India's entire arbitration ecosystem.

In a world where business relationships increasingly transcend borders, having confidence in dispute resolution mechanisms isn't just legally important – it's economically vital.

The next time you're reviewing an arbitration clause, remember: fairness isn't just a legal principle. It's good business.