IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.459 of 2022 Decided on 06th August, 2025 AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Sh. Sher Singh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sud, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajat, Advocate. For the respondents: Respondents are already ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (A) “The impugned order dated 25.04.2022 passed by learned District Judge Solan in Case No.349-S/10 of 21/2018 titled M/s AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v/s Sher Singh Annexure P-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the learned Executing Court be ordered and directed to restore execution petition and enforce and execute award in accordance with provisions of Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2 (B) The Record of arbitration proceedings conducted by learned Arbitrator and Executing Court below may kindly be called for to examine its legal and validity.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order and has submitted that as what weighed with the learned Executing Court was the fact that the appointment of the sole arbitration was bad in the eyes of law, in the light of the judgments referred to in the impugned order, now this order is no good in the light of the five Judges Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION versus ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY, (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 641, in terms whereof, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the interpretation that all unilateral appointments are automatically nullified under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would go way beyond the legislative intent of the Arbitration Act and if the legislature had intended such a rigid restriction, there would be no need for the proviso to Section 12(5), which explicitly permits parties to waive this requirement through an agreement in writing. 3 3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel and having perused the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court agrees with the learned Senior Counsel. 4. In Para 216.2 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “Unilateral appointment of arbitrators is permissible as per the legislative scheme of the Arbitration Act. There is a distinction between “ineligibility” and “unilateral” appointment of arbitrators. As long as an arbitrator nominated by a party is eligible under the Seventh Schedule to the Act, the appointment (unilateral or otherwise), should be permissible. It is only in cases of a complete lack of consensus that the Court should exercise its power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator as per Section 11(8) read with Sections 12 and 18 of the Arbitration Act. At the appointment stage, the scope of judicial intervention is otherwise extremely narrow.” 5. In the light of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside by remanding the matter back to the learned Court below with the 4 observation to decide the issue afresh in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties. Ordered accordingly. 6. Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.04.2022, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Court below to decide the legality of the appointment of the Arbitrator in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in India CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION versus ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY, (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 641. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 06, 2025 (Vinod)