Bombay High Court Criticizes NBFCs' Algorithm-Based Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources. How we report.
TL;DR
- Bombay High Court criticized NBFCs for algorithmic and institutional unilateral arbitrator appointments.
- Court found such practices illegal and contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
- IIFL Finance was specifically named for employing this strategy.
- Decision highlights growing judicial scrutiny of arbitration appointment practices.
Overview
The Bombay High Court has flagged and criticized a growing practice among non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) in India of unilaterally appointing arbitrators through institution- or algorithm-based platforms. The Court found these practices to be a circumvention of settled Supreme Court law on appointment neutrality in arbitration.
What Happened
The Bombay High Court reviewed a case involving IIFL Finance Limited, where the NBFC appointed an arbitrator using an algorithm-based platform, allegedly masking a unilateral appointment.
In its order, delivered by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, the Court criticized this method as a conscious strategy to evade judicial safeguards established by the Supreme Court regarding the neutrality of arbitrator appointments.
The Court also noted that similar tactics were being increasingly adopted by financial institutions, expressing concern about the use of institutional and technological means to present an appearance of neutrality while retaining control over the appointment process.
The High Court declared that such practices are illegal and do not comply with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Supreme Court precedents.
Context
The Supreme Court of India has previously set out principles to ensure impartial and independent arbitrator appointments, especially addressing concerns with unilateral appointment mechanisms.
NBFCs and other lending institutions have increasingly adopted digital and algorithm-based systems for dispute resolution, claiming efficiency and neutrality.
Critics argue that institution- or algorithm-based appointment by one party undermines the fundamental fairness expected in arbitral proceedings.
Why It Matters
- The Bombay High Court's ruling puts financial institutions on notice regarding the risks of using algorithmic methods for arbitrator appointments.
- The decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding basic principles of impartiality in arbitration procedures in India.
- It signals tighter judicial scrutiny on arbitration practices in the financial sector, potentially prompting institutional reform across NBFCs.