Arbitrator – Challenge to his impartiality based on Google Search
The arbitration proceedings are being conducted at the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration as per the agreed arbitration clause in the agreements between the parties.
MCIA appointed the Arbitrator. However, the applicant filed two applications under Section 14 of the AA on the independence and mandate of Arbitrator on the ground that in the Google search it was found that the sole Arbitrator was associated with a law firm, whose Managing Partner represents other companies in the respondent Group and also is on the Governing Council of the MCIA.
Therefore, the allegation is that the MCIA has selected an Arbitrator who is an associate of a law firm whose Managing Partner is involved in the governance of MCIA and also represents various affiliates of the group.
HELD that the Google search based on two phrases to connect the Arbitrator with the respondent and MCIA. However, the respondent filed LinkedIn profile of the Arbitrator to show that through the career, he was not an associate with the law firm. Instead of accessing the LinkedIn profile of the Arbitrator, the applicant has made allegations based on Google Search. The MCIA also returned the same findings. In that context, it was observed that a challenge to the independence of an arbitrator ought to be focused and specific.
The linkages sought to be drawn against the Arbitrator are far too tenuous and remote, and worse, imagined.
Judgment dated 10.2.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Application [L] No.8657 of 2024 (OS) of Kalyani Aditya Mineral Limited Vs. Aditya Birla Group Trading
