INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus K.D. BALI & ANOTHER

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus K.D. BALI & ANOTHER

There was no reasonable ground for apprehension of bias against the arbitrator. The arbitrator was appointed by the competent authority named by the petitioner and the alleged grounds were not sufficient in law to revoke his authority under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Mere suspicion, particularly those arising from procedural complaints and party's own conduct, does not warrant revocation; the standard is real likelihood of bias assessed objectively.

Parties
Petitioner: International Airport Authority of India; Respondent: K.D. Bali; Respondent: Mohinder Singh and Company
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Dismissal at Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Arbitrator's Authority, Bias Apprehension, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator
Arbitration Revocation of Arbitrator's Authority Bias Apprehension Jurisdiction of Arbitrator

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

International Airport Authority of India

Petitioner

K.D. Bali

Respondent

Mohinder Singh and Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Dismissal at Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether apprehension of bias is a valid ground for revocation of arbitrator's authority appointed under sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
  2. 2 Whether irregular references by competent authority invalidate further arbitration references.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no reasonable ground for apprehension of bias against the arbitrator. The arbitrator was appointed by the competent authority named by the petitioner and the alleged grounds were not sufficient in law to revoke his authority under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Mere suspicion, particularly those arising from procedural complaints and party's own conduct, does not warrant revocation; the standard is real likelihood of bias assessed objectively.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Authority of the arbitrator not revoked