- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in India
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Government, Public Sector and Strategy topic(s)
- with readers working within the Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 15.10.2025 in National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. NSPR-VKJ JV & Ors.1, held that mere pendency of an unverified complaint or alleged FIR against an arbitrator does not constitute de jure ineligibility under Section 14(1)(a) of the A&C Act.
The issue for consideration before the High Court was whether allegations of corruption and pendency of a complaint before the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta against the Presiding Arbitrator constituted a de jure ineligibility under Section 14(1)(a) of the A&C Act warranting termination of his mandate.
The High Court held that de jure ineligibility under Section 14(1)(a) must stem from circumstances prescribed by law, such as those enumerated under the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act and cannot be inferred from mere complaints or unsubstantiated allegations. The High Court observed that termination of an arbitrator's mandate on the basis of vague or unverified accusations would undermine the arbitral process and set a dangerous precedent allowing parties to derail proceedings at will. It was further held that allegations of bias or partiality fall within the scope of Sections 12 and 13 of the A&C Act and not under Section 14. Accordingly, finding no legal disqualification or proven misconduct, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking termination of the Presiding Arbitrator's mandate.
Footnote
1. O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 44 of 2025 & I.A. 13797 of 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
