Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Bombay High Court Scraps Arbitral Award Over "Hurried" Conclusion

In a stinging rebuke to arbitrary procedural conduct, the Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award, branding it a product of "undue haste" and "misconduct." The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, underscores that an arbitrator’s failure to conduct meaningful hearings—coupled with long, unexplained delays—renders an award a nullity under the public policy doctrine.

The Backdrop: A Contractual Standstill

The dispute originated from an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) for AC coach RMPUs awarded by Central Railway to M/s. Amit Engineers in 2010. While the contract was meant to span 36 months, disputes regarding claims emerged, leading the contractor to invoke arbitration in 2012.

Though a sole arbitrator was appointed in 2015, the proceedings languished. After a solitary meeting in June 2017, the tribunal fell silent for nearly four years. It was only after the contractor formally sought the arbitrator's substitution—citing an expired mandate—that the proceedings were suddenly jolted back to life, resulting in a rejection of the contractor’s claims on May 31, 2021.

The Argument: Formality vs. Fairness

The petitioner—M/s. Amit Engineers—argued that the award was "non est," contending that the arbitrator’s mandate had expired due to his failure to act. They pointed to the fact that the arbitrator had essentially ignored the case for years, only to act after the General Manager of the Railways redirected him to finalize the matter—a move the petitioner characterized as biased.

Conversely, the Respondents argued that because the arbitration was invoked prior to the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there was no statutory time limit for the award. They insisted that the proceedings were validly concluded and that the subsequent court order appointing a new arbitrator was based on ignorance of the existing award.

Legal Analysis: The "Pretext" of Pandemic

Justice Marne’s analysis dismantled the tribunal’s defense, particularly the claim that the delay was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that the delay began long before 2020. More crucially, the Judge pointed out that despite the arbitrator claiming the pandemic caused the delay, he ironically managed to "hurriedly" issue the award while pandemic restrictions were still in full effect.

The Court held that the arbitrator’s description of three meetings (held in 2016 and 2017) as "many occasions" was a distortion of fact that revealed a non-judicious mindset. By issuing an award without conducting any actual hearings after 2017, the arbitrator violated fundamental principles of natural justice.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a firm reminder of the standards expected of an arbitrator: * "An arbitrator who makes the effort to listen before deciding will enhance both the prospect of accuracy and satisfaction of the litigants’ taste for fairness." * "The Tribunal which had not conducted any meetings for 4 long years, hurriedly fixed the hearing... and exhibited undue haste in making the Award." * "The Arbitrator has clearly misconducted by describing just three meetings held in 2016 and 2017 as ‘many occasions’... [which] exposes his unfair mind and non-judicious approach." * "The Award is in conflict with public policy doctrine. The delay in pronouncement of the Arbitral Award is also unexplained."

The Verdict: A Reset

The Court has officially set aside the award dated May 31, 2021. By reinforcing the standard that arbitration cannot be a tool for administrative expediency, the High Court has cleared the path for the newly constituted Arbitral Tribunal—appointed by the Court in September 2025—to adjudicate the dispute afresh.

This ruling serves as a vital precedent, warning that even in pre-2015 arbitration matters, arbitrators cannot hide behind a lack of statutory timelines to justify procedural apathy, bias, or the denial of a fair hearing.