The Bombay High Court has sharply criticised IIFL Finance Limited for using the strategy of masking unilateral arbitrator appointments by routing them through institutions or algorithm-based selection platforms. [DS Textiles v. IIFL Finance Ltd].
The Court noted an increasing trend of non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) and banks unilaterally appointing arbitrators through an institution or an algorithm, hoping this cleanses the inherent illegality.
“An increasing trend is being seen in a number of matters, in particular by non-banking financial companies and even scheduled commercial banks that are themselves listed companies …where a unilateral arbitrator is appointed but purporting to appoint the arbitrator through an ‘institution’ or an algorithm-based selection of arbitrator, it is hoped that the inherent illegality in unilateral-appointment is magically cleansed,” the Court said.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan made the observations on April 30 while disposing of three arbitration petitions filed by DS Textiles, Madhuram Fabrics Pvt Ltd. and PR Packing Service against IIFL.
IIFL informed the Court that it had instructions to withdraw the proceedings. The judge noted that while IIFL sought to withdraw proceedings, this practice reveals a concerning pattern.
“The modus operandi is to conduct arbitration in this process and hope that in most cases the affected party may not challenge the arbitration and may instead come up with settlement terms, with the strategy resulting in recoveries,” the Court said.
However, whenever the opposite party challenges the unilateral appointment, the appointing party simply comes to Court and volunteers to have the arbitration proceedings withdrawn, the judge noted.
The judge stressed that there are only two methods in law to appoint an arbitrator: (1) the consent of the parties; and (2) an appointment by the court having jurisdiction in the matter under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Justice Sundaresan warned such conduct is directly contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court and lends arbitration a bad name and inflicts long-term damage to alternate dispute resolution as a mechanism.
He ordered this judgment be placed before IIFL's Board of Directors and audit committee to ensure that those in the governance are aware that the practice adopted by them is contrary to law.
Ramoji Rao’s Death No Bar: Supreme Court Revives Scrutiny of Margadarsi Financiers over Deposit Allegations
Moneylife Digital Team
04 May 2026
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and Margadarsi Financiers in a case concerning alleged unauthorised collection of public deposits, making it...
Bombay High Court Orders Action Against Fraudulent WhatsApp Groups, Websites Impersonating DBS Bank
Bar
and
Bench
30 April 2026
The Bombay High Court recently directed WhatsApp and a domain registrar to act swiftly against alleged online frauds that were impersonating DBS Bank India and using its name to dupe investors (DBS Bank v. John Doe &...
Bank of Maharashtra's ₹1,161 Crore Lease: Disputed Property, Alleged Forged Documents — and Silence - Part 2
Yogesh Sapkale,
30 April 2026
Serious questions continue to surround Bank of Maharashtra’s ₹1,161 crore Pune office lease, with allegations ranging from inflated carpet area and contractual violations to intimidation and post-lease irregularities, even as the Bank...
Bank of Maharashtra's ₹1,161 Crore Pune Office Lease: Disputed Title, Alleged Tender Violations and a US Investor Family's Cry for Justice- Part 1
Yogesh Sapkale,
29 April 2026
In July 2024, months before Bank of Maharashtra (BoM) floated its public tender for office space, one of the men who would eventually sign the lease on behalf of the lessor entities sent a written message to his co-signatories — and...
