Gujarat High Court
M/S Coronet Engineers Private Limited vs M/S Nish Techno Projects Private ... on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12956 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
M/S CORONET ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
M/S NISH TECHNO PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR S M DAVE(11268) for the petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GAURAV S MATHUR, ADVOCATE with
MS POONAM MATHUR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Mathur waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the Respondent (Original Claimant).
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal in Arbitration Case No. 14 of Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 2024, whereby the learned Arbitrator rejected the petitioner's application seeking recusal. It is case of the petitioner herein that the application seeking recusal was made due to circumstances that gave rise to a serious apprehension regarding impartiality and independence of learned arbitrator. Accordingly, an application dated 15.04.2025 under Section 12(3)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A&C Act') was filed and the same being rejected this petition is filed. The petitioner herein is original opponent and respondent herein is original claimant in Arbitration case No. 14 of 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The petitioner herein is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of manufacture, supply, and commissioning of PLC panels and AC Drives. The petitioner is also involved in the design, manufacture, and supply of various electrical control panels, including HT Panels, PCC Panels, MCC Panels, and other associated electrical equipment having several reputed clients. Along with above businesses, the company is also involved in water treatment plants, water distribution systems, and sewage pumping stations, among other activities. For the alleged breach of contractual obligations arising from a Letter of Intent dated 15.04.2019, concerning the manufacturing and supply of Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined various electrical equipment, the respondent herein (original claimant), moved an application under Section 11 of the A&C Act. In section 11 of A&C petition, with consent of both the parties, appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. C. Rao (Former Judge, Gujarat High Court) was made. Following this appointment, Statement of Claim was filed in Arbitration Case No. 14 of 2024. The petitioner herein (original defendant) filed its Reply and Counter Claim. Rejoinder is also filed.
3.1. Thereafter issues were framed on 03.12.2024 and examination of witnesses has begun. At this stage cross- examination of one of the original Claimant's witnesses has been completed, thus the trial has commenced. It is case of the petitioner that during cross-examination of Respondent's (original claimant) key witness, Mr. Kartik Jain, on 21.03.2025, the petitioner's counsel was subjected to repetitive interruptions by the learned Sole Arbitrator. Several relevant questions were not permitted. Furthermore, the petitioner's authorized representative claims to have personally witnessed the learned Sole Arbitrator leaving the Arbitration Centre in the same vehicle along with the Respondent's counsel. Subsequent to these incidents, steps were initiated by the petitioner to ascertain the validity of its grievance regarding the impartiality of the learned Sole Arbitrator. Being satisfied on this aspect, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 12(3)(a) of Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined the A&C Act, which was rejected by the Order dated 26.06.2025 in Arbitration Case No. 14 of 2024, leading to the filing of the present petition.
3.2. Heard Learned advocate Mr. S. M. Dave for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Mathur for respondent.
SUBMISSIONS BY PETITIONER (ORIGINAL OPPONENT)
4. Learned advocate Mr. S. M. Dave for the petitioner submitted that the order rejecting the petitioner's application dated 15.04.2025, is bad in law and therefore the Order dated 26.06.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.1. The learned advocate submitted, that the application dated 15.04.2025 was filed by the petitioner under Section 12(3)(a) of A&C Act. The said Section permits a challenge to an arbitrator, if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. In the present case, as detailed in the application, such justifiable circumstances existed, giving rise to doubts in the petitioner's mind regarding the Arbitrator's independence and impartiality.
Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 4.2 Referring to the application (Annexure-M, Page No. 250) and the detailed representation dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure-L, Page No. 239), the learned advocate highlighted specific incidents where Learned Arbitrator's conduct was questioned, particularly regarding not permitting effective cross-examination of the key witness and the Arbitrator accompanying the Respondent's counsel. CCTV footage for both these allegations was cited as crucial evidence forming part of the representation, with a request made to the Registrar of the Arbitral Centre for its retention. The learned advocate submitted that in response, an email was received from the Registrar indicating that the petitioner's request to retain the CCTV footage was also directed to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator. Since the detailed representation and the application dated 15.04.2025 were not considered in terms of the provisions of A&C Act, this petition deserves consideration by quashing and setting aside the Order dated 26.06.2025.
4.3. In this case, now in view of rejection of an application made under Section 12(3)(a) of the A&C Act, the provisions of Section 13(4) of A&C Act would be applicable. Section 13(4) provides that if the challenge is unsuccessful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. Section 13(5) of the A&C Act, further provides that where an arbitral award is made under sub-section (4), Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined the party challenging the arbitrator may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with Section 34 of the A&C Act. However, Sub Section (2) of Section 34 of the A&C Act provides for the circumstances or eventualities for setting aside an arbitral award. Since petitioner's case does not fall in the eventualities prescribed under Sub Section (2) of Section 34 of the A&C Act, he would be rendered remediless. Therefore, the present petition may be entertained by quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 26.06.2025.
4.4 In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 75, to contend that a challenge to an arbitral order is permissible in exceptional circumstances. The order passed in this case is akin to an order passed under Section 16 of the A&C Act, and as permitted under the said decision, the present circumstances are exceptional, and the petitioner being remediless, warranting the Court's intervention.
4.5 Reliance was also placed on Ellora Paper Mills Limited v.s. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 1, to Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined emphasize the paramount consideration of the neutrality of arbitrators. The learned advocate submitted that since the circumstances gave rise to justifiable doubts, the Sole Arbitrator ought to have considered the petitioner's application. The requirement is not to prove actual bias but merely the existence of circumstances that give rise to any justifiable apprehension of bias.
4.6 Further reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court decision in Surender Kumar Singhal and Ors v.s. Arun Kumar Bhalotia and Ors , reported in 2021 SCC Online Del 3708. While this decision primarily dealt with a challenge to an order under Section 16 of the A&C Act, learned advocate argued that the criteria laid down therein concerning the scope of interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in challenges to order by an arbitral tribunal--including those under Section 16 of the A&C Act--cannot exclude the challenge to an order passed under Section 13(4) of the A&C Act.
4.7 The learned advocate thus concluded that the petitioner's case may be considered on the ground that the order rejecting the application was made in bad faith, and therefore, merits consideration.
Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT (ORIGINAL CLAIMANT)
5. Opposing the petition, learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Mathur with learned advocate Ms. Poonam Mathur raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition.
5.1 The learned advocate submitted that the facts establish the rejection of the petitioner's application dated 15.04.2025 seeking the recusal of the learned arbitrator by a reasoned order. A bare perusal of the Order dated 26.06.2025 shows that every objection raised, or the circumstances cited that led to the petitioner's perception of impartiality, was considered in detail. The learned Sole Arbitrator relied upon various judicial pronouncements for the rejection of the application. Moreover, the Respondent had filed a detailed reply dated 05.04.2025 to the representation and a reply dated 21.04.2025 to the application dated 15.04.2025, which explained the circumstances and incidents to justify that the allegations were misconceived. Consequently, the learned Sole Arbitrator rightly rejected the application and the representation.
5.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate relied upon Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined following decisions:
HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Division) v. GAIL (INDIA) Limited, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 471 (Para 12).
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49 (Para 19).
A. Jayakanthan v. J.R.S. Crusher and Ors, decided by the Madras High Court on 20.10.2021 in C.M.A. No. 1456 of 2021 (Paras 3, 4, 12, 17, 20, 21, and 22).
Madhav Structural Engineers Ltd., Mumbai v. Vice Chairman and Managing Director, M/s Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation, Mumbai and Anr, reported in 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 513 (Paras 38 to 43).
FINDINGS & CONCLUSION
6. Having considered the submissions and the decisions relied upon, the Court notes that the initiation of arbitral proceedings resulted from an application preferred by the Respondent (Original Claimant) under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The petitioner (Original Opponent) consented to the arbitration in that application, leading to the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.C Rao (Former Judge, Gujarat High Court) as learned Sole Arbitrator by this Court. The case was registered as Arbitration Case No. 14 of 2024. Following Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined registration, the Respondent filed the Statement of Claim on 30.05.2024, and the petitioner subsequently filed the Written Statement and a Counter Claim. Upon completion of the pleadings, issues were framed on 03.12.2024. The trial in Arbitration Case No. 14 of 2024 thus commenced, and the examination of the original Claimant's witness proceeded from 07.01.2025 to its completion on 21.03.2025.
7. Upon completion of the examination-in-chief of the original Claimant's witness on 21.03.2025, the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the witness. However, the petitioner alleges that counsel was prevented from posing appropriate questions due to interruptions by the learned Sole Arbitrator. This, has caused bias against the petitioner, creating circumstances of impartiality in the petitioner's mind. An allegation of direct contact with the representative of the Respondent (Original Claimant) was also made. The learned Sole Arbitrator considered this application, along with the Respondent's replies, and passed the Order dated 26.06.2025, wherein it was held:
"20. In the application for recusal, the Sole allegation raised by the Respondent is that the act of the Claimant's counsel facilitating the Arbitrator's departure from the Arbitration Centre creates an appearance of bias. However, in the representation submitted by the Applicant qua Respondent, it is stated that the incident in Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined question occurred in the presence of both parties. Furthermore, the offer to transport the Arbitrator to his residence by car, upon leaving the premises of Arbitration Centre, was also made in the presence of both parties.
21. The learned counsel for the Claimant has submitted that the Application qua Respondent has made a representation to the Registrar of the Gujarat High Court, with a copy thereof forwarded to the Director of the Arbitration Centre. In the said representation, the Applicant qua Respondent sought the CCTV footage for the relevant date and time. However, the Applicant has neither produced a copy of the CCTV footage nor provided any details regarding the outcome of his representation. Conversely, the learned counsel for the Applicant qua Respondent has submitted that the Arbitrator may issue an order to preserve the CCTV footage pertaining to the incident in question."
8. It is pertinent to note that under Section 12(3)(a) of the A&C Act, an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. The challenge procedure is provided under Section 13 of the A&C Act, wherein, Section 13(4) envisages that if a challenge is not successful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. Therefore, once the petitioner's application under Section 12(3)(a) is rejected, and the petitioner is unsuccessful, the arbitral tribunal is required to Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined continue the proceedings and render an award.
9. Furthermore, Section 13(5) of A& C Act provides that where an arbitral award is made under sub-section (4), the party challenging the arbitrator may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with Section 34 of the A&C Act. In the opinion of this Court, upon rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 12(3)(a), the arbitral tribunal must continue the arbitral proceedings and make an award, which may then be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act. Thus, reading of Section 13(4) with Section 5 of the A&C Act, provides for the minimal extent of judicial intervention (stating no judicial intervention is permissible except as provided in that part), the position becomes clearer.
10. Apart from the bare reading of the provisions, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HRD Corporation (supra) in Paragraph 12, the Supreme Court held:
"12. After the 2016 Amendment Act, a dichotomy is made by the Act between persons who become "ineligible" to be appointed as arbitrators, and persons about whom justifiable doubts exist as to their independence or impartiality. Since ineligibility goes to the root of the Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined appointment, Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule makes it clear that if the arbitrator falls in any one of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule, he becomes "ineligible" to act as arbitrator. Once he becomes ineligible, it is clear that, under Section 14(1)(a), he then becomes de jure unable to perform his functions inasmuch as, in law, he is regarded as "ineligible". In order to determine whether an arbitrator is de jure unable to perform his functions, it is not necessary to go to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 13. Since such a person would lack inherent jurisdiction to proceed any further, an application may be filed under Section 14(2) to the Court to decide on the termination of his/her mandate on this ground. As opposed to this, in a challenge where grounds stated in the Fifth Schedule are disclosed, which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's independence or impartiality, such doubts as to independence or impartiality have to be determined as a matter of fact in the facts of the particular challenge by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 13. If a challenge is not successful, and the Arbitral Tribunal decides that there are no justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator/arbitrators, the Tribunal must then continue the arbitral proceedings under Section 13(4) and make an award. It is only after such award is made, that the party challenging the arbitrator's appointment on grounds contained in the Fifth Schedule may make an application for setting aside the arbitral award in accordance with Section 34 Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined on the aforesaid grounds. It is clear, therefore, that any challenge contained in the Fifth Schedule against the appointment of Justice Doabia and Justice Lahoti cannot be gone into at this stage, but will be gone into only after the Arbitral Tribunal has given an award. Therefore, we express no opinion on items contained in the Fifth Schedule under which the appellant may challenge the appointment of either arbitrator. They will be free to do so only after an award is rendered by the Tribunal." (Emphasis in original.)
11. In Associate Builders (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while determining the parameters for a challenge under Section 34 of the A&C Act, recognized that a challenge is permissible to an order under Section 13(5) of the A&C Act. This decision was further considered in the post-amendment ruling in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the most basic notions of justice:
"71. In Dongwoo Mann+hummel Co. Ltd. v. Mann+hummel Gmbh, [2008] SGHC 67, the High Court of Singapore held:
"131. In PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2007] 1 SLR 597 ("PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero)"), the Court of Appeal explained what would constitute a conflict with public policy (at [57] and [59]):Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
57. ... The legislative policy under the Act is to minimise curial intervention in international arbitrations. Errors of law or fact made in an arbitral decision, per se, are final and binding on the parties and may not be appealed against or set aside by a court except in the situations prescribed under s 24 of the Act and Art 34 of the Model Law. ... In the present context, errors of law or fact, per se, do not engage the public policy of Singapore under Art 34(2)(b) (ii) of the Model Law when they cannot be set aside under Art 34(2)(a) (iii) of the Model Law.
59. Although the concept of public policy of the State is not defined in the Act or the Model Law, the general consensus of judicial and expert opinion is that public policy under the Act encompasses a narrow scope. In our view, it should only operate in instances where the upholding of an arbitral award would "shock the conscience" (see Downer Connect ([58] supra) at [136]), or is "clearly injurious to the public good or ... wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public" (see Deutsche Schachbau v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyds' Rep 246 at 254, per Sir John Donaldson MR), or where it violates the forum's most basic notion of morality and justice: see Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Societe Generale de L'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) 508 F 2d, 969 (2nd Cir, 1974) at 974. This would be consistent with the concept of public policy that can be ascertained from the preparatory materials to the Model Law. As was highlighted in the Commission Report (A/40/17), at para 297 (referred to in A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and Commentary by Howard M Holtzmann and Joseph E Neuhaus (Kluwer, Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 1989) at 914):
In discussing the term 'public policy', it was understood that it was not equivalent to the political stance or international policies of a State but comprised the fundamental notions and principles of justice... It was understood that the term 'public policy', which was used in the 1958 New York Convention and many other treaties, covered fundamental principles of law and justice in substantive as well as procedural respects. Thus, instances such as corruption, bribery or fraud and similar serious cases would constitute a ground for setting aside." (Emphasis in original)
132. In Profilati Italia SRL v Paine Webber Inc [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 715 ("Profilati"), Moore-Bick J made the following observations in relation to the argument that non-disclosure of material documents constituted a breach of public policy in the context of s 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (at [17], [19] and [26]):
17. ... Where the successful party is said to have procured the award in a way which is contrary to public policy it will normally be necessary to satisfy the Court that some form of reprehensible or unconscionable conduct on his part has contributed in a substantial way to obtaining an award in his favour. Moreover, I do not think that the Court should be quick to interfere under this section [ie, s 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996]. In those cases in which s. 68 has so far been considered the Court has emphasized that it is intended to operate only in extreme cases.
19. Where an important document which ought to have been disclosed is deliberately withheld Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined and as a result the party withholding it has obtained an award in his favour the Court may well consider that he procured that award in a manner contrary to public policy. After all, such conduct is not far removed from fraud.
26. Even if there had been a deliberate failure to give disclosure of the two documents in question it would still be necessary for Profilati to satisfy the Court that it had suffered substantial injustice as a result."
12. Further, by taking guidance, in the case of A. Jayakanthan (supra), the Madras High Court, while deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, considered similar grounds of challenge concerning the rejection of an application made under Section 12(3)(a) of the A&C Act. In Paragraphs 21 and 22, the Court held:
"21. After referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court while deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act arising out of the dismissal of an application filed under Section 16(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal which is on the same lines as that of Section 13(4) held by its judgment dated 13.09.2021 in CRP (NPD) No.1441 of 2021 that the only recourse available to a party is to challenge the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as no appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the aforementioned judgment are as follows:Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
14. Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is based on the doctrine of kompetenz - kompetenz which indicates that an Arbitral Tribunal is empowered and has the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction....
The underlying object of this doctrine is to minimize judicial intervention in order to ensure that the arbitral process is not thwarted....
15. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which deals with appealable orders also does not permit any appeal rejecting an application filed under section 16.... The remedy for an aggrieved party is only to challenge the arbitral award... as seen from section 16(6)....
16. Under section 16(6)... it is made clear that a party aggrieved by the rejection of application filed under section 16... can only challenge the award which may be passed against him or her in the near future under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
22. The Principles applicable to Section 16(5) and Section 13(4) are similar in nature. Both Section 16(5) and Section 13(4) form part of the Statute only to prevent any unnecessary interference by Courts pending Arbitration which may result in delaying the outcome of the Arbitration thereby defeating the salutary objects of Arbitration."
13. In the decision of the Bombay High Court in Madhav Structural Engineer (supra), while addressing the termination of an arbitrator's mandate, the Court held that a conjoint reading of Section 12(3)(a) and Section 13(2) of the A&C Act indicates Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined that an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. The challenge must be made within the prescribed period. Section 13(3) provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge unless the arbitrator withdraws. If the challenge is not successful, the arbitral tribunal is mandated to continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. Once the arbitral award is made under Section 13(4), the challenging party may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with Section 34 of the A&C Act.
14. Therefore, conjoint reading of the referred provisions and various judicial decisions leads this Court to the opinion that it is an admitted position that the petitioner applied for the termination of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator on the ground of circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. Having been unsuccessful in the said application, the arbitrator can only be challenged subsequently as provided in Section 13(5) of the A&C Act. In other words, the allegations raised against the arbitrator have been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, and the only recourse available to the petitioner is to challenge the same before a competent Court once an arbitral award is passed against him by the very same arbitrator under Section Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12956/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined 34 of the A&C Act.
15. Furthermore, the principle of minimal intervention by the Courts in arbitral proceedings, as held by various decisions, cannot be ignored. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the clear language of Section 13(4) of the A&C Act, there is restriction to entertain this petition challenging the order of the learned Arbitrator. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final award, all objections regarding the conduct of the learned Sole Arbitrator can be raised under Section 34 of the A&C Act. Consequently, the contention raised by the petitioner that its case does not fall within the circumstances or grounds under which the arbitral award may be set aside does not merit acceptance.
16. In view of the observations made hereinabove, and more particularly, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
17. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:41:58 IST 2025