Madras HC – Arbitral Bias of Co-Arbitrators & Principle of Poisoning the Well
In this case, the dissenting Arbitrator made observations against the Presiding Arbitrator and Co-Arbitrator were openly biased, adjudicated the case with preconceived notion and did not discuss the case with him on following averments
- Both have acted as Co-Arbitrators in an almost similar case conducted almost concurrently pertaining to the agreement dated 6.2.2019 where the issues are similar and the award declared recently.
- Both the Arbitrators did not discuss this case with me with open mind and kept their preconceived conclusions and findings in this case too. Hence, my views were kept aside while writing the arbitral award.
III. The issues deliberated in detail in the hearing held on 8.1.2022 also figured in the order sheet were kept aside while drawing conclusions, finding facts and deciding the arbitral award.
In this context, the High Court held that since the bias vitiates the award for violation of the principles of natural justice, it also goes against the fundamental policy of the Indian Law.
Applying the principle of poisoning the well and the award afflicted by bias, it was held to be violative of Section 18 and also under Section 34(2)(i)(b) AA.
Section 34 petition was allowed with costs of Rs.1,50,000/- payable by the respondent.
Judgment dated 20.1.2026 of the High Court at Madras in arbitration O.P. (Com.Div) No.602 of 2022 of M/s. Muthu Construction – Salem Vs. Union of India by its Principal Chief Engineer Southern Railway
