HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
( BEFORE SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 6 OF 2022
D.O.D 27.02.2026
STATE OF GOA, REP. BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
M/S. U. P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD., …. RESPONDENT
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act – Section 12 and 13 – the plea of bias of Arbitrator Shri Shitala Sharan – either on the date on which the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted or the objection was raised by the Appellant regarding appointment of Shri Shitala Sharan, neither the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance nor the Act of 1996 were in force. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any duty on the part of the Arbitrator(s) under Section 12(1) of the Act of 1996 to make any disclosure. If that be so, the question of Section 13(5) of the Act of 1996 having any applicability would also not arise in the facts of the present case
FACTS
Objection to Arbitral Award – the plea of bias of Arbitrator- that Shri Shitala Sharan was earlier working as the Managing Director of the claimant-contractor and he was also a consultant for the claimant-contractor –that he had close links with the claimant and, therefore, he cannot be said to be an impartial Arbitrator- Consequently, the Arbitral Award would also stand vitiated due to the biasness on the part of one of the Arbitrator i.e. Shri Shitala Sharan, who was the nominee of the claimant-Contractor -As such, in view of Section 12 and 13 of the Act of 1996, there was a duty cast upon the Arbitrator Shitala Sharan to disclose all such circumstances, as noted above, which he had failed to do – on such count, the Appellant-State has prayed for setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 08.08.1997.
HELD
Either on the date on which the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted or the objection was raised by the Appellant regarding appointment of Shri Shitala Sharan, neither the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance nor the Act of 1996 were in force. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any duty on the part of the Arbitrator(s) under Section 12(1) of the Act of 1996 to make any disclosure. If that be so, the question of Section 13(5) of the Act of 1996 having any applicability would also not arise in the facts of the present case. (Para 14)
In the present case, the appointment of Arbitrators have been made by following the prescription of Clause 67 of the Agreement, which contains the Arbitration clause. Under the aforesaid clause, the claimant-contractor and the State of Goa had the right to appoint/nominate one Arbitrator each. Accordingly, the claimant-contractor-Respondent, had nominated Shri Shitala Sharan to act as an Arbitrator. Therefore, the appointment procedure has been strictly in accordance with the Arbitration clause.
It is nobody’s case that Shitala Sharan was not eligible to act as an Arbitrator in this case. It is to be borne in mind that it is not in dispute that all these facts were well within the knowledge of the Appellant at the time when Shri Shitala Sharan was nominated as an Arbitrator. Not only that, when the nomination of Shri Shitala Sharan as an Arbitrator was intimated to the employer, no objection was raised by the Appellant-State on such count. The question of making a disclosure by the Arbitrator would arise only when certain facts are not within the knowledge of the other party. (para 12 and 13)
There is nothing on record to show that the award was vitiated by bias or any likelihood of bias on the part of one of the Arbitrators i.e. Shri Shitala Sharan. (para 15)
For Judgment Click 👇