Arbitrator's Impartiality and Principles under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitrator's Impartiality and Principles under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

It has been held in Bhupender Lal Ghai v. Crown Buildtech Pvt Ltd [2011] GCtR 6490 (Delhi) that "a party may feel aggrieved by an order or award passed by an Arbitrator. An Arbitrator may, in fact, have erred in passing an order. But that, by itself, cannot be considered to be a circumstance which would give rise to justifiable doubts regarding the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator. A bona fide judgmental error either by a court or an Arbitrator even if committed, cannot, in normal circumstances, be construed as a circumstance giving rise to justifiable doubt about the independence or impartiality of the court or the Arbitrator. There has to be something more than that. Something more specific."

It was further explained that "it appears from the conduct of the respondent and its counsel, who appeared before the Arbitrator on 05.05.2011, that the whole purpose was to somehow derail the arbitration proceedings; get the learned Arbitrator to resign, and; to prevent the Arbitrator from making the award." Therefore, absolutely no justification was found in the respondent withdrawing its consent to the raising of the fee of the learned Arbitrator, which, in any event, had been agreed to be paid only at the rates prescribed under the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Arbitrators Fees) Rules. 

On the issue of fees of arbitrator's fees it was explained that arbitrator has to be paid for the work that he has done, and my request to the learned Arbitrator is to accept the fees and not to refund any part thereof. Otherwise, it would send a very wrong message to everyone – that one can ill-treat an Arbitrator; have him removed, and; also get refund of the fee paid to him for the work done by him.