Research and Articles
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
Hotline
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Deal Talk
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
December 12, 2019ndia: Supreme Court rules on apprehension of bias in arbitration
This article was originally published in International Arbitration Law Review (Vol. 22 Issue 4 of 2019)
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain v Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Ptv Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6960 of 2011 dated 24 July 2019, was recently faced with the question of whether there existed a reasonable apprehension of bias such that an arbitral award be set aside. In this case, the arbitrator who rendered the final arbitral award in the arbitration had been engaged and was acting as counsel of one of the parties in another litigation. The Supreme Court interpreted the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (as the present case applied the law as it stood prior to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015) to determine the arbitral award rendered by the appointed arbitrator should be set aside as the Appellants had a reasonable basis to doubt the arbitrator’s ability to be independent and impartial in pronouncing the arbitral award.
For complete article, please click here.