Impartiality Requires More than Prior Views of Arbitrators – Rules Delhi High Court
the Judgment dated 13.10.2025 of the High Court of Delhi in OMP (COMM) 20/2023 of Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs. British Marine PLC with connected matters.
There was Contract of Affreightment (COA) for carriage of cargo.
In section 34 petition, the arbitral award dated 13.9.2018 passed by the majority of three-members Arbitral Tribunal was challenged.
One of the contentions was that the appointments of the Presiding Arbitrator and the Co-Arbitrator as also continuance was not tenable in law. Both had taken a specific view on interpretation of Clause 62 of COA in another arbitration between SAIL and M/s. SeaSpray Shipping.
Therefore, there was “ issue conflict “ since there were justifiable doubts on their impartiality in deciding the same issue.
Issue conflict is a species of impartiality and recognised doctrine of pre-judging legal issues based on previous opinions / judgments.
In other words, if an Arbitrator has decided an issue in earlier arbitration and called upon to decide the same issue in another arbitration, there is a likelihood that his vision on that issue will be coloured by the view taken earlier and a party to the second arbitration may perceive this to be an obstruction in the ability of the Arbitrator to decide with an open mind, there will be a tenancy to confirm to the earlier opinion or view.
However, the question was whether, in the facts of the case, their sheer presence is enough to hold that there were justifiable doubts to their impartiality and thus, their appointments became vulnerable under Section 12 of the AA.
In that context, it was HELD that it must be shown that the Arbitrator’s ability to decide the issue arising in the second case is clouded and that he will not be able to approach the issue with an open mind so as to do justice to the party.
It is not uncommon in arbitration regime for some Arbitrators to be appointed in multiple references involving same or common parties with same or similar questions of law.
It is equally not uncommon that parties prefer to appoint same Arbitrators for different contracts involving similar questions or in fresh arbitrations, where there are pending arbitrations involving similar issues. The reason to make such a choice is the familiarity of the Arbitrator with the background, technical details and nuances as also complicated legal issues,
