The Delhi High Court has held that mere allegations of corruption against an arbitrator is not a ground for their removal [National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL) v NSPR VKJ JV & Ors]. .Justice Jyoti Singh held that terminating the mandate of an arbitrator on a mere complaint would not only be contrary to Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but would also set a dangerous precedent.“...arbitration framework demands a delicate balance between fairness and integrity on one side and unwarranted removal of Arbitrators on unverified and uncorroborated allegations, on the other. Preserving the integrity of arbitration is paramount to save public confidence in the process, however, this imperative must be carefully balanced against the rights of individuals who may be the subject of unproven and motivated allegations,” the Court observed. The Court added that termination of the mandate of an arbitrator on unsubstantiated claims could itself erode ‘fairness’ that the arbitration regime seeks to uphold..The Bench made these observations while dealing with a plea filed by the National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) seeking termination of the mandate of the presiding arbitrator in its dispute with a firm named NSPR VKJ Joint Venture. The dispute relates to a road construction contract. Former IAS officer Radhey Shyam Julaniya has been presiding over the arbitration proceedings. NHIDCL sought termination of the arbitrator on the ground that he was involved in a pending corruption case and that there were justifiable doubts about his impartiality. It was stated that Julaniya was de jure ineligible because he failed to disclose material facts regarding alleged corruption charges and a Lokayukta complaint.It was further contended that the arbitrator’s conduct of threatening NHIDCL with closure of its right to file a statement of defence unless objections to his continuation were withdrawn, reflected bias and collusion with the contractor..After considering the case, the High Court rejected the contention, noting that the NHIDCL had failed to show if the allegations of corruption against the arbitrator have been proved or substantiated in any forum. “It would seriously undermine the arbitral process if this Court was to terminate the mandate of Respondent No.4 on a mere and vague assertion in the petition that a case was registered before the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta, in 2016, without anything more,” the Court said. Therefore, it dismissed the petition. .Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao with Advocates Avneesh Garg, Rohit Rishi, Anshul, Utkarsh Sharma, Zahid Ahmad and Iptisha appeared for NHIDCL. Advocates Dr Amit George, Shashwat Kabi, Adhishwar Suri, Ganesh Chandra Kabi, Vartika Singhania, Aadarsh Mittal, Shristi Gupta and Subhashni Kumari represented NSPR VKJ. Advocate Sunny Choudhary appeared for the presiding arbitrator. Advocate Asmita Narula appeared for Respondent No 5. .[Read Judgment]
