Disposed

Chandravati Sharma & Anr. v. Neelmani Sharma & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Sept 2025O.M.P./14/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A section 34 challenge to an arbitration award where a party to the dispute had unilaterally appointed the sole arbitrator; relying on TRF Ltd and Perkins Eastman, the court set aside the award as the appointment violated arbitrator neutrality.

What did the court decide?

Arbitral Award dated 06.08.2018 set aside; O.M.P. 25/2018 disposed of with pending applications.

Chandravati Sharma & Anr. Vs Neelmani Sharma & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~93-102

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+	O.M.P. 14/2016 & I.A. 39846/2024 CHANDRAVATI SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: versus NEELMANI SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondent
	Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv.
94
+	O.M.P. 15/2016
	CHANDRAVATI SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: versus NEELMANI SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondent
	Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv.
95
+	O.M.P. 16/2016 & I.A. 10792/2018 CHANDRAVATI SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: versus NEELMANI SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondent
	Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv.
	Mr.Amit George Adv.
96
+	O.M.P. 17/2016 VINOD SHARMA .....Petitioner
	Through: Mr. Ashim Shridhar, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Mohan Goel, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. versus NEELMANI SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondent
	Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv.
97
+	O.M.P. 18/2016
	SMT. CHANDRAVATI SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioner

¶4

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:23:57

¶5

Through: versus NEELMANI SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv. 98 + O.M.P. 21/2016 & I.A. 6845/2016, I.A. 12704/2016 NEELMANI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv. versus VINOD SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashim Shridhar, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Mohan Goel, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. 99 + O.M.P. (COMM) 276/2016 & I.A. 12703/2016 NEELMANI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv. versus CHANDRAVATI SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: 100 + O.M.P. 25/2018 & I.A. 15389/2018 NEELMANI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv. versus M/S PANDIT MUNSHI RAM & ASSOCIATES PVT.LTD. & ORS. .....Respondent Through:

¶6

101 + O.M.P.(I) 17/2018 & I.A. 14047/2018, I.A. 14048/2018 VINOD SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashim Shridhar, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Mohan Goel, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv.

¶7

¶8

versus

¶9

NEELMANI SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv.

¶10

102

¶11

O.M.P.(I) 18/2018, I.A. 14049/2018, I.A. 14050/2018 VINOD SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶12

Through: versus

¶13

NEELMANI SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh Adv. Mr.Amit George Adv.

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 08.09.2025

¶15

O.M.P. 17/2016

¶16

Mr. Shridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition.

¶17

Hence, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

O.M.P. 16/2016, O.M.P. 15/2016, O.M.P. 14/2016

¶19

Nobody is appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the present petitions.

¶20

Hence, the petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶21

O.M.P. 25/2018

¶22

This is a petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 06.08.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

¶23

The facts are that, in 1981 the respondent No. 1 company was incorporated by one Shri L.C. Sharma and one Shri Prem Chand Sharma. In

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:23:57

¶26

1995, Mr. Ashok Sharma was inducted as a director on the board of the respondent No. 1 company and in 1997 the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were inducted as directors on the board of respondent No.1 company.

¶27

Subsequently, there were changes in the directorships of the respondent No. 1 company and the petitioner and respondent No. 2 continued to remain the directors of the said company. Thereupon, the respondent No. 2 allegedly became the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No. 1 company (Dispute pertaining to the same is still pending). 8. On 29.07.2017, respondent No. 2 acting as the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No. 1 company in exercise of his rights under the Articles of Association of respondent No. 1 company invoked arbitration and on 12.08.2017 appointed the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 9. The petitioner challenged the unilateral appointment made by the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 20.10.2017. However, despite the same, the Sole Arbitrator passed the impugned Award dated 06.08.2018 in favour of the respondent No. 2. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 10. It is settled law that neutrality and independence of an Arbitral Tribunal go to the root of the matter and the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at every stage of arbitration proceedings, including the stage of appointment of the Arbitrator(s). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377 and further in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Ors. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (2020) 20 SCC 760, has clearly laid down that a person who has an interest in the outcome of the dispute must not have the power to appoint Arbitrator(s), as the same leads to apprehension of bias and prejudice.

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2025 at 12:23:57

¶30

In the present case, the facts above set clearly show that the respondent No. 2 who was a party to the arbitration, appointed the Sole Arbitrator. The same is contrary to the law as laid down in TRF Ltd. (supra) and Perkins Eastman Architect (supra).

¶31

For the said reasons, the petition succeeds and the Arbitral Award dated 06.08.2018 is set aside.

¶32

The present petition is disposed of with pending applications, if any. O.M.P. 18/2016, O.M.P. 21/2016, O.M.P. (COMM), 276/2016, O.M.P.(I) 17/2018, O.M.P.(I) 18/2018

¶33

List on 09.09.2025 at 2:30 P.M.

¶34

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶35

SEPTEMBER 8, 2025/AS

¶36

Chandravati Sharma & Anr. v. Neelmani Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandravati Sharma & Anr. v. Neelmani Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs Public Works Department through Executive Engineer

Harji Engineering Works Private Limited Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

Intec Capital Ltd. Vs Mr Shekhar Chand Jain & Anr.

Robin Raina Vs Eraaya Lifespaces Limited & Ors.

Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. Vs Sidhartha Educational and Welfare Society & Ors.

M/S Kuldeep Kumar Contractor Vs Wapcos Limited and Anr.