Arbitrator’s Conflict Non-Disclosure Vitiates Foreign Award

Judgment dated 17.4.2026 of the High Court of Delhi in O.M.P> (EFA)(COMM.) 4/2025 of MSA Global LLC (OMAN)  Vs  Engineering Projects (India) Limited

Justice, it has long been said since R v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy1, must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

The details of the Award Holder company and its Counsel were disclosed in the  Request for Arbitration as reproduced in 104 of the judgment.

Thereafter, the said Arbitrator nominated by the Award holder gave the the initial Statement of the concerned Arbitrator (nominee of the Award Holder) declaring that he had “nothing to disclose” in relation to any facts or circumstances giving rise to “justifiable doubts” on his impartiality or independence.

After the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, in 2025 the Judgment Debtor came across the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat showing that Mr. Yeap had earlier acted as a co-arbitrator in a matter involving Mr. Manbhupinder Singh Atwal, the Chairman and promoter of the Award Holder.

On consideration of the response of the said nominated Arbitrator, in para 108 the High Court HELD that “A perusal of paragraph No. 9 clearly shows that the Arbitrator was aware of his previous engagement and even expressed apprehension that disclosure of the same to the Judgment Debtor might give rise to concerns. This clearly demonstrates that the Arbitrator himself considered the prior engagement to be a circumstance relevant to his independence and impartiality. However, despite such knowledge, the Arbitrator failed to make a proper disclosure as required under the rules governing international arbitration.

While such prior engagement may not, in itself, be disqualifying, it undoubtedly triggered a continuing obligation of disclosure under principles mentioned under Section 12 of the Act.