2019年11月4日，在Tagore International School vs Edusmart Services Pvt Ltd, Arb No. 3808/18一案中，印度新德里地区法院裁定，当事人之间即使约定申请人可以单方任命独任仲裁员来进行仲裁，但是由于也约定了该仲裁员必须是可接受的仲裁员，该人选必须征得被申请人同意，申请人也必须对被申请人发出关于该仲裁开始的通知和仲裁员的任命通知，否则这会篡夺法院在当事人之间无法对仲裁员人选达成一致时介入仲裁任命仲裁员的管辖权。
一、背景介绍
本案是被申请人依照《仲裁与和解法》第34条提起的对独任仲裁员作出的单方面仲裁的裁决（the ex parte Arbitral Award）的撤裁申请。
仲裁的两个申请人分别是M/s Educom Solutions Ltd.公司和其全资子公司M/s Edu Smart Services Pvt Ltd。被申请人是泰戈尔国际学校。
二者之间签署了《三方协议》，向学校出售并安装软件硬件和支持服务，被申请人分期付款。申请人主张其适当履行了合同但是被申请人仍未付款。经通知催告被申请人无效后，申请人发起了仲裁。
根据《三方协议》，独任仲裁员应由甲方任命（The sole Arbitrator shall be appointed by Part A.），仲裁员必须是可接受的仲裁员（an acceptable sole Arbitrator）。
申请人向独任仲裁员致函，征求其同意来发起仲裁。仲裁员向被申请人发出通知，但被申请人没有出庭，因此仲裁程序为单方面进行。证据得到了记录，随后作出了本案所涉的仲裁裁决。
申请人主张本案不适用《仲裁与和解法》第34条的撤裁规定，理由是时效届满，因此法院应驳回被申请人的撤裁申请。
被申请人提出的异议是：
（i）其未收到依照《仲裁与和解法》第21条的规定的适当通知。申请人仅发出了一份通知书，其不构成《仲裁与和解法》第21条项下的通知；
（ii）根据《三方协议》第9.1条，仲裁员必须是双方接受的独任仲裁员，但在申请人任命的现任独任仲裁员并未获得被申请人的接受；
（iii）据认为，没有收到仲裁员的通知，仲裁程序是单方面非法进行的；
（iv）申请人未进行适当送达，存在过失；
（v）仲裁员并非独立仲裁员，其在其他几项事务中也有任命。
被申请人主张，《三方协议》约定的软件无法正常运行。他们雇佣了人员来处理软件并使其正常运行。系统中还开始出现其他缺陷，而尽管其反复请求，申请人仍未采取任何措施。被申请人于2013年6月28日致函终止合同，但被申请人致函要求其支付余额。此后，虽然学校设在Kasargod，但申请人却在德里非法开始仲裁。申请人进一步与学校校长保持联系，并促使其不参加仲裁程序。该裁决是由申请人通过欺诈获得的，被申请人没有得到关于任命仲裁员的适当通知。他们不接受该仲裁员人选。
二、法院认定
1、时效届满争议点
关于时效届满方面，申请人主张裁决是在2016年1月27日作出的，而撤裁申请是在2018年7月31日提交法院的（延迟超过400天）。但是，被申请人先将第34条申请书提交Kasargod法院，后被退回。被申请人于2016年5月19日将退回的申请提交给本案法院，而根据《仲裁与和解法》的规定 ，被申请人可以在120天内（即2016年5月27日或之前）向地方法官提交该申请。因此，该申请是在时效内提交的。因此，被申请人没有延迟提交本案申请。
2、仲裁通知争议点
（1）申请人未向被申请人发出《仲裁与和解法》 第21条的通知
《仲裁与和解法》 第21条如下
21.仲裁程序的开始。除非当事人另有协议，否则关于特定争议的仲裁程序应于被申请人收到仲裁申请书之日开始。
21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.
法院认为，在本案中，申请人并没有向被申请人发出该等通知。申请人向被申请人的学校发出了一份通知，但这是对其提出要求的通知，仅声明被申请人需要结清某些欠款，否则申请人要对其提起仲裁，而不是《仲裁与和解法》第21条的通知。
依照Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd VS Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd, MANU/DE/0495/2017案，在没有《仲裁与和解法》第21条项下发出通知的情况下，申请人将无法证明某一当事方没有遵守该程序并同意任命仲裁员的请求。一方当事人未作出回应则构成该法第11条规定的法院的管辖权的理由（without the notice under Section 21 ofthe Act, a party seeking reference of disputes to arbitration will be unable to demonstrate that there was a failure by one party to adhere to the procedure and accede to the request for the appointment of an arbitrator. The trigger for the Court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act is such failure by one party to respond.）若当事人未明确放弃根据第21条提出此类通知的弃权，则必须完全执行该规定。不应假定该条款的目的仅仅在于限定仲裁程序于何时开始。（in the absence of such express waiver, the provision must be given full effect to. The legislature should not be presumed to have inserted a provision that serves a limited purpose of only determining, for the purposes of limitation, when arbitration proceedings commenced.）即使假设该规定仅用于限定仲裁程序于何时开始的目的，若无根据第21条通知，则如何确定该开始日期？ 该规定指明的是，“被申请人”收到通知，其中包含请求“将争议提交仲裁”。其用词表明的是尚未发生的事件——将争议提交仲裁。若省略该步骤并直接向申请人自己任命的仲裁员提出主张，申请人将违反第21条的要求，从而使当事人同意任命仲裁员的重要元素不能实现。（The provision talks of the 'Respondent' receiving a notice containing a request for the dispute "to be referred to arbitration". Those words have been carefully chosen. They indicate an event that is yet to happen viz. the reference of the disputes to arbitration. By overlooking this important step, and straightaway filing claims before an arbitrator appointed by it, a party would be violating the requirement of Section 21, thusfrustrating an important element of the parties consenting to the appointment of an arbitrator.）《仲裁与和解法》 的主旨是当事各方在每个阶段的同意或协议， 第21条在几个方面达成共识：争议的范围，未决争议的确定； 已届时效的争议的确定； 请求权和反请求的确定；以及最重要的仲裁员的确定。因此，除非当事人另有约定，否则该第21条的仲裁通知是强制性的。若无该通知，则仲裁程序不可在法律上继续进行（Considering that the running theme of the Act is the consent or agreement between the parties at every stage, Section 21 performsan important function of forging such consensus on several aspects viz. the scope of the disputes, the determination of which disputes remain unresolved; of which disputes are time barred; of identification of the claims and counterclaims and most importantly, on the choice of arbitrator. Thus, the inescapable conclusion on a proper interpretation of Section 21 of the Act is that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the notice under Section 21 of the Act by the claimant invoking the arbitration clause, preceding the reference of disputes to arbitration, is mandatory. In other words, without such notice, the arbitration proceedings that are commenced would be unsustainable in law.）。依照第21条的规定，仲裁程序的开始至日应为“被申请人收到将该争议提交仲裁的请求”之日。第21条的目的是确定仲裁程序的开始日期，主要与决定申请人的请求是否时效届满有关。（In view of section 21 of the Act providing that the arbitration proceedings shall be deemed to commence on the date on which "the request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent" the said confusion is cleared. Therefore the purposeof section 21 ofthe Act is to determine the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings, relevant mainly for deciding whether the claims of the claimant are barred by limitation or not.）
（2）虽然申请人可以单边任命仲裁员，但是其人选必须取得被申请人的接受
此外，根据《三方协议》，独任仲裁员应由甲方任命（The sole Arbitrator shall be appointed by Part A.），仲裁员必须是可接受的仲裁员（an acceptable sole Arbitrator）。因此，申请人必须向被申请人发送有关仲裁员人选通知，但申请人从未发送过此类通知。（Hence, it was mandatory to send notice to the objector with respect to the arbitrator to be appointed to seek his consent but no such notice was ever sent.）
关于当事人是否可以约定由一方单边任命仲裁员上，法院举例说在Dharma Prathishthanam vs. M/s Madhok Construction Pvt.Ltd., SP (Civil) 7835 of 2003, decided on : 02/11/2004一案中，印度最高院裁定，仲裁条款授权当事方之一在不经另一方同意的情况下任命一名仲裁员的约定是可以的。在这种情况下，本质上有两点：第一，由仲裁庭或仲裁员的选择；第二，将争议提交给仲裁员。这两点均应基于在选择仲裁员时和在当事双方之间订立合同时参考其他情况时的同意，以预期将来可能需要解决争议。（Further, this was not a case where the arbitration clause authorised one of the parties to appoint an arbitrator without the consent of the other. Two things are, therefore, of essence in cases like the present one: firstly, the choice of the Tribunal or the arbitrator; and secondly, the reference of the dispute to the arbitrator. Both should be based on consent given either at the time of choosing the Arbitrator and making reference of else at the time of entering into the contract between the parties in anticipation of an occasion for settlement of disputes arising in future.）
与前案不同的是，法院认为，本案申请人对仲裁员的任命的条件在案发之前是不明确的。在未经法院干预的情况下，当事各方必须严格遵守其协议。如果仲裁条款中已经约定了仲裁员的姓名，那么任命仲裁员就不会有困难。如果仲裁条款未指定仲裁员，但规定了选择和任命仲裁员的方式，则当事各方必须相应地采取行动。如果当事人不达成一致，则会产生麻烦，必须参照《仲裁与和解法》的规定解决。当事人不能单方面行事以篡夺法院的管辖权。单方面任命和单方面仲裁都是非法的。（In case of arbitration without the intervention of the Court, the parties must rigorously stick to the agreement entered into between the two. If the arbitration clause names and arbitrator as the one already agreed upon, the appointment of an arbitrator poses no difficulty. If the arbitration clause does not name an arbitrator but provides for the manner in which the arbitrator is to be chosen and appointed, then the parties are bound to act accordingly. If the parties do not agree then arises the complication which has to be resolved by reference to the provisions of the Act. One party cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Court and proceed to act unilaterally. A unilateral appointment and a unilateral reference, both will be illegal.）
在Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal (1979) 3 SCC 631案中，法院指出，一方不能将其选择的仲裁人强加于不同意该人选的另一方。在这种情况下，唯一的解决方案是寻求法院任命仲裁员。（Clearly one party cannot force his choice of arbitrator upon the other party to which the latter does not consent. The only solution in such a case is to seek an appointment from the Court.）在当事各方不同意的情况下，法院则介入接管过来管辖权，并在其管辖权范围内作出任命。（Where the parties do not agree, the Court steps in an assumes jurisdiction to make an appointment also to made a reference, subject to the jurisdiction of the Court being invoked in that regard.）此外，另一方仅要求另一方不采取行动，就不会导致暗示默示同意或默许。一方当事人未对另一方当事人的提名人选作出回应也不能解释为同意，僵局情况下的唯一选项择是援引法院的管辖权以任命仲裁员。
《仲裁与和解法》 第34（2） （a）（iii）条规定如下：
34.申请撤销仲裁裁决。
（2）只有在以下情况下，法院才能撤销仲裁裁决：
（a）提出申请的一方提供证明
（iii）提出申请的当事方未得到有关任命仲裁员或仲裁程序的适当通知，或以其他方式无法提出其主张；
34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;
（3）单边任命的仲裁员未进行适当披露
此外，根据《仲裁与和解法》第12条的规定，仲裁员必须以书面形式披露任何可能引起对其独立性或公正性的正当怀疑的情况。但是，没有记录表明本案仲裁员有作出过该披露，且被申请人指出，单方面任命仲裁员和未存在该披露也是引发对本案仲裁员的独立性和公正性的合理怀疑的理由。（Further as per Section 12 of A&C Act arbitrator is required to disclose in writing, any circumstances likely to raise justifiable doubts as to his independents or impartiality. However, there is nothing on record to show that arbitrator disclosed to the opposite party that he/she has been appointed in other matters and in how many matters. Needless to say, the present arbitrator is appointed in several other matters as well by the respondents, some of which are pending before this Court also as is pointed out by Ld counsel for objector. This itself is also a ground which gives rise to justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality of the arbitrator appointed in this case.）
因此，申请人单方任命独任仲裁员而没有通知被申请人，且由此进行的仲裁程序依照以上条文无效，且违背了基本的正义，因此本案裁决中的程序应被撤销。
三、评论
本案中，法院并没有直接否定当事人之间约定的由申请人发起仲裁单方任命仲裁员这一约定的效力，而是着眼于仲裁员必须是可接受的仲裁员（an acceptable sole Arbitrator），因此申请人当方面启动的仲裁之后也必须给被申请人发出仲裁通知以及有关仲裁员人选通知，取得被申请人的接受，否则仲裁无效。关于该仲裁无效的原因，法院没有否定仲裁协议对此的约定的效力，而是认定没有发出通知和取得被申请人对人选的接受这一做法篡夺了法院正在当事人无法对仲裁员人选达成一致时介入仲裁任命仲裁员的管辖权。该案在一定程度上既尊重了当事人的意思自治，又重申法院在当事人之间无合意的情况下对仲裁程序的管辖权。