Perkins Eastman v. HSCC: the extension from ineligible-cannot-nominate to ineligible-cannot-unilaterally-appoint

Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd is the case that took TRF Ltd v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd (2017) — a holding addressed at the narrow facts of an ineligible MD nominating a substitute — and extended it to the broader and more important class of clauses in which an interested party is given unilateral power to choose the arbitrator without intending to sit himself. The extension was doctrinally inevitable; the reasoning in TRF did not depend on the appointing authority's intention to sit, but on the structural conflict between the appointing authority's interest in the dispute and the impartiality the Seventh Schedule exists to protect. Perkins Eastman draws that conclusion expressly.

The two-judge bench — Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra — heard the case under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a). The lead judgment was authored by Justice Lalit. The judgment is short, tightly reasoned, and operatively decisive: the unilateral appointment under the contractual clause was held void, and the Court itself appointed an independent sole arbitrator.

The judgment is the second of three Supreme Court interventions that together define the post-2015 arbitrator-appointment line — TRF (2017) supplied the foundation; Perkins (2019) supplied the extension; the Constitution Bench in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (8 November 2024) supplied the framing and partial recalibration.

The architecture of the question

The 2015 Amendment Act inserted Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule into the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The provisions together state a de jure rule: a person whose relationship with the parties, the counsel or the subject-matter falls within any of the Seventh Schedule categories is ineligible to act as arbitrator. The rule is statutory; it operates without reference to actual bias; it can be displaced only by an express written agreement of the parties after the dispute has arisen.

TRF answered the first-order question about what happens when the disqualified person is named as the arbitrator with a fallback nominative power: the disqualification destroys both. The infrastructure / superstructure metaphor captured the structural point.

What TRF did not directly answer was the second-order question. Suppose the clause does not name the disqualified person as the arbitrator at all; suppose it merely confers on him the unilateral power to choose the arbitrator from outside the contracting authority. The disqualified person does not sit; the arbitrator is — at least nominally — independent. Does the Section 12(5) taint travel to the appointing authority?

The institutional context made the question urgent. PSU contracts, infrastructure concession agreements and public-sector procurement contracts had — in response to TRF — moved from clauses that named the MD or General Manager as the arbitrator to clauses that vested the same officer with unilateral power to appoint someone else. The substantive imbalance was identical; the formal structure was different. Perkins asked whether the formal change rescued the clause.

The factual matrix

Perkins Eastman Architects DPC — the petitioner — was a US-based architectural firm. It had entered into a consultancy agreement with HSCC (India) Ltd — a public-sector undertaking under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare — for an AIIMS architectural-design project. The agreement contained a dispute-resolution clause that ran in three layers: amicable settlement; failing which, reference to the Director (Engineering) of HSCC for adjudication; failing which, sole arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of HSCC.

A dispute arose over fees and termination. Perkins Eastman invoked the arbitration clause. The CMD of HSCC, exercising the unilateral appointment power, nominated a sole arbitrator. Perkins Eastman objected. The objection was that the CMD — being himself an officer of HSCC with direct interest in the outcome of the dispute — was statutorily ineligible to act as arbitrator under Section 12(5); and that, on the TRF reasoning, the same ineligibility extended to the unilateral appointment power.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Section 11(6), the matter being an international commercial arbitration (one party being a foreign entity), and accordingly within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Section 11(12)(a).

The two-judge bench heard the matter and delivered judgment on 26 November 2019.

The reasoning

The Court's reasoning is structured around two propositions — one about the substantive reach of TRF, and one about the structural logic of Section 12(5).

Proposition one — the substantive reach of TRF

The bench's first move is to read TRF not as a holding about the formal coincidence of the disqualified person and the arbitrator, but as a holding about the structural conflict between the disqualified person's interest and the impartiality the statute protects.

Justice Lalit observes that the TRF result rests on the principle that the disqualified person's interest in the dispute is incompatible with the office of arbitrator, and that the same incompatibility infects the act of choosing who shall be the arbitrator. The infrastructure / superstructure metaphor in TRF speaks to the derivative character of the nominative power; the appointing authority's act is, in commercial reality, an act of his party in the dispute.

If the TRF reasoning rests on incompatibility of interest, the bench reasons, the reasoning applies as forcefully to the case where the appointing authority's choice is unfettered and unilateral — even where the appointing authority does not himself sit. The conflict that disqualifies him from sitting equally disqualifies him from unilaterally choosing who sits.

Proposition two — the structural logic of Section 12(5)

The bench's second move is to articulate the structural concern that Section 12(5) exists to address. The Law Commission's 246th Report — which supplied the legislative architecture for the 2015 Amendment — identified the unilateral-appointment-by-interested-party structure as the principal source of the bias problem in Indian arbitration. The fundamental concern was not that the named arbitrator might be actually biased; it was that the institutional architecture of one-sided appointment produced a structural imbalance that could not be cured by retrospective bias assessments.

The unilateral appointment power, exercised by an interested party, replicates the structural imbalance in a formally compliant package. The arbitrator is, on paper, independent — but the choice of arbitrator was made by one party, with no input from the other, and that choosing party has direct interest in the outcome. The statute's policy is not advanced by allowing the structural imbalance to be re-introduced one step removed.

The bench's articulation, paraphrased from the reasoning, is direct: a person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator — the very interest that disqualifies him from acting also disqualifies him from being the sole choosing authority.

The consequence

The consequence is that the unilateral appointment by the CMD was void. The clause, to the extent it conferred unilateral appointment power on an interested-party officer, could not operate post-Section 12(5). The Court therefore exercised its power under Section 11(6) — read with Section 11(12)(a) — and appointed an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

The doctrinal contribution

Perkins contributes to Indian arbitration law on four axes.

Substantive. The judgment transforms TRF's narrow holding into a structural rule. The "ineligible-cannot-self-nominate" principle becomes the "ineligible-cannot-unilaterally-appoint" principle. The transformation captures the substantive concern of Section 12(5) — the structural neutrality of the appointment process — rather than the formal coincidence on which TRF had operated.

Institutional. The judgment effectively renders the standard pre-2015 unilateral-appointment clause — common in PSU, infrastructure and public-sector procurement contracts — non-operational. The clause cannot be invoked; the dispute proceeds to a Section 11(6) application; the Court appoints. The volume of Section 11 applications in PSU disputes shifted measurably post-Perkins.

Architectural. The judgment supplies the doctrinal foundation for the now-standard "balanced appointment mechanism" requirement. A clause is defensible post-Perkins only if the appointment authority is itself neutral — institutional, broad-based, or genuinely shared between the parties — or if the appointment process gives the counterparty meaningful agency.

Procedural. The judgment models the procedural response. Where the unilateral appointment is challenged, the Court does not merely set aside the appointment; it itself appoints an independent sole arbitrator under Section 11(6). The model has become the standard Section 11(6) response to Section 12(5) / Perkins challenges.

What the Court did not decide

The judgment is narrow in three important respects.

Broad-based panel arrangements. The clause in Perkins was pure unilateral — the CMD chose, unconstrained. The judgment does not address the position where the appointing party maintains a broad-based panel of independent arbitrators from which the counterparty selects, or where both parties select from a common panel. That question — central to PSU contracting practice and to the Voestalpine Schienen line — was reserved for later treatment and was addressed by the Constitution Bench in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (8 November 2024). Perkins sits within the pure-unilateral category that Central Organisation preserved as the Perkins core.

Mixed appointment mechanisms. Some clauses run on a two-tier model: the appointing party proposes a panel of names; the counterparty selects from the panel; failing selection within a time limit, the appointing party chooses. The Perkins reasoning suggests that the default-back-to-unilateral fallback is problematic — but the issue was not directly before the bench. Subsequent practice has tended to read Perkins as requiring the counterparty's selection from a broad-based panel to be a meaningful one, with the fallback restricted to genuine non-selection.

The position of post-appointment conduct. Whether the counterparty's participation in proceedings before a Perkins-tainted arbitrator amounts to waiver under the Section 12(5) proviso was not directly addressed in Perkins. Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd (2019) — decided around the same period — held that the waiver under the proviso must be express and in writing, and that participation does not supply the consent that the proviso requires. Perkins sits comfortably within that framework.

The doctrinal arc

The arbitrator-appointment line in post-amendment Indian arbitration law runs through three authorities and a Constitution Bench overlay.

TRF Ltd v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd (3 July 2017, three-judge bench) supplied the foundation: an ineligible MD-arbitrator cannot nominate a substitute. The detailed analysis is set out in the TRF digest.

Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd (2019) 5 SCC 755 fortified the TRF / Perkins line on two adjacent points — the Section 12(5) applicability to arbitrations commenced after the 2015 Amendment regardless of contract date, and the waiver-under-proviso requirement of express written agreement.

Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (26 November 2019, two-judge bench) extended TRF from "ineligible-cannot-self-nominate" to "ineligible-cannot-unilaterally-appoint". The judgment supplied the structural reasoning that TRF had not directly articulated, and modelled the Section 11(6)-Court-appoints procedural response.

Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. SITI Cable Network Ltd (Delhi HC, 2020) applied Perkins to a private-sector context and held that the unilateral appointment by a company official — even outside the PSU context — was equally invalid under Section 12(5). The principle is general, not confined to PSU arrangements.

Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. DMRC (2017) 4 SCC 665 had earlier permitted broad-based PSU panels with safeguards — the panel containing a sufficient number of independent professionals (retired judges, retired bureaucrats from outside the PSU sector, professionals with no relationship with the parties) and the counterparty being given a meaningful selection. The Voestalpine line and Perkins run on parallel tracks: pure unilateral is bad (Perkins); broad-based with safeguards is permissible (Voestalpine).

Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (8 November 2024, five-judge Constitution Bench) supplied the framing. The Constitution Bench preserved Perkins for pure unilateral structures — confirming that interested-party unilateral appointment is, post-Section 12(5), doctrinally barred. The Constitution Bench also reaffirmed and refined the Voestalpine broad-based-panel framework: PSU panels are permissible where (i) the panel composition is broad-based, with a sufficient number of independent professionals; (ii) the counterparty has a meaningful selection from the panel; and (iii) safeguards against panel composition by interested parties are in place. The Central Organisation framework supplies the post-2024 working rule for PSU and infrastructure contracting; Perkins supplies the floor.

The post-Central Organisation practice continues to test the boundary between pure unilateral and broad-based with safeguards. The Delhi HC's order in PTC Techno Pvt Ltd v. Samsung India (late April 2026) — setting aside a 2018 arbitral award on the ground that the unilateral appointment by a company official violated Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule — illustrates that the Perkins core remains the most cited authority on unilateral-appointment invalidity.

The practitioner's take

For the party invoking arbitration under a pre-2015 unilateral-appointment clause. The clause cannot be operated. Issue the Section 21 notice; flag the Section 12(5) / Perkins objection at the outset; offer the counterparty either joint nomination of an independent sole arbitrator or, failing consent, a Section 11(6) application. Do not participate in proceedings before an arbitrator appointed under the void clause — participation does not waive the Section 12(5) objection (Bharat Broadband), but it complicates the procedural posture.

For the party whose contract contains the unilateral-appointment clause. The clause is, in operational reality, a Section 11(6) trigger. The institutional response is to renegotiate to a Central Organisation-compliant broad-based panel structure: a panel of substantial size, populated predominantly by independent professionals with no relationship with the parties (retired judges of the High Court / Supreme Court, retired bureaucrats from outside the relevant ministry, senior advocates), with the counterparty having genuine choice. Where renegotiation is not possible, accept that disputes will be routed through the Section 11(6) Court-appoints route.

For the tribunal appointed by a unilateral interested-party process. The position is uncomfortable. Where the appointment is Section 12(5) / Perkins-non-compliant, the tribunal should raise the issue at the threshold and invite the parties to either supply express written waiver (under the Section 12(5) proviso) or to seek fresh appointment under Section 11(6). Proceeding to award is a procedural risk; the award is exposed at the Section 34 stage on a ground (Section 34(2)(a)(v) — composition not in accordance with the agreement / Part I) that is doctrinally well-supported by Perkins.

For drafting. Post-Perkins and Central Organisation, the gold standard for an arbitrator-appointment clause in PSU / infrastructure / public-sector procurement contracts is the Central Organisation-compliant broad-based panel — typically constituted by an independent appointing authority (the Indian Council of Arbitration, the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, or a similar institution), with both parties having selection rights. For private commercial contracts, the clean choice is institutional administration (ICC, SIAC, LCIA, MCIA, ICA, DIAC) with appointment by the institution.

For Section 34 practice. The Perkins ground is one of the strongest available Section 34 grounds in post-2015 awards arising out of pre-amendment unilateral-appointment clauses. The pleading should set out the relationship under the Seventh Schedule (typically Seventh Schedule category 1 — employment / consultancy of the appointing officer; or category 12 — managerial control), the date of appointment, the timeline of any participation, and the absence of express written waiver under the Section 12(5) proviso.

For the Section 11(6) applicant. The Court's response post-Perkins is well-established. Plead the Section 12(5) / Perkins invalidity of the contractual appointment route; ask the Court to appoint an independent sole arbitrator. The discretion runs to choice of arbitrator, not to whether to appoint — once the Perkins invalidity is made out, the appointment follows. Suggest names of independent arbitrators with relevant subject-matter experience; the Court typically appoints from the suggested names or from its own panel.

Related editorial pieces

• TRF v. Energo: the Supreme Court's first articulation of ineligibility-cannot-nominate
• Silence is consent: the Supreme Court's reading of Section 29A waiver in arbitration
• Vidya Drolia and the four-fold test: the Supreme Court reorders the law of arbitrability
• Cox & Kings and the group-of-companies doctrine: a Constitution Bench re-anchors the law of non-signatories