The case involves a dispute over the appointment of a sole arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding. The key facts are as follows: The parties had an arbitration agreement that stipulated the appointment of a sole arbitrator by a designated authority, which in this case was the Chairman of the Airports Authority of India (!) (!) . The arbitration was initiated due to disputes arising from a license agreement for ground handling services at airports, which included an arbitration clause (!) (!) . The respondent appointed the arbitrator unilaterally, which the appellants contended was invalid because the appointment violated statutory provisions that require the arbitrator to be eligible under the law, specifically under the amended Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule (!) (!) . The appellants argued that the appointment was void ab initio because the arbitrator was ineligible due to his relationship with the respondent, which fell under the categories listed in the Seventh Schedule, making him de jure ineligible to act as an arbitrator (!) (!) (!) . The appellants further claimed that their participation in the arbitration proceedings did not constitute a waiver of their right to object to the appointment, especially since no express written agreement waiving such ineligibility was made after the dispute arose (!) (!) (!) . The courts examined whether the appointment was unilateral and invalid, whether the parties had waived their rights through conduct or agreement, and whether objections could be raised at different stages of the arbitration process, including during Section 34 proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) . Ultimately, the courts found that the appointment was indeed ineligible and unilateral, and that no valid waiver had been established. The appointment was declared void, and the arbitral awards based on such appointment were set aside, allowing for the possibility of initiating fresh arbitration proceedings (!) (!) . In summary, the case centers on whether the appointment of the arbitrator was legally valid, focusing on issues of eligibility, unilateral appointment, and waiver of rights, with the courts ruling that the appointment was invalid due to statutory violations.

Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Airports Authority of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 9

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Navin Pahwa, Ashish Mohan, Akshit Mago, Akshit Pradhan
For the Respondents: Parag Tripathi, Sonal K. Singh, Ayan De, Shivang Singh, Anmol Adhrit, Sukanya Lal

Judgement Key Points

The case involves a dispute over the appointment of a sole arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding. The key facts are as follows:

The parties had an arbitration agreement that stipulated the appointment of a sole arbitrator by a designated authority, which in this case was the Chairman of the Airports Authority of India (!) (!) .
The arbitration was initiated due to disputes arising from a license agreement for ground handling services at airports, which included an arbitration clause (!) (!) .
The respondent appointed the arbitrator unilaterally, which the appellants contended was invalid because the appointment violated statutory provisions that require the arbitrator to be eligible under the law, specifically under the amended Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule (!) (!) .
The appellants argued that the appointment was void ab initio because the arbitrator was ineligible due to his relationship with the respondent, which fell under the categories listed in the Seventh Schedule, making him de jure ineligible to act as an arbitrator (!) (!) (!) .
The appellants further claimed that their participation in the arbitration proceedings did not constitute a waiver of their right to object to the appointment, especially since no express written agreement waiving such ineligibility was made after the dispute arose (!) (!) (!) .
The courts examined whether the appointment was unilateral and invalid, whether the parties had waived their rights through conduct or agreement, and whether objections could be raised at different stages of the arbitration process, including during Section 34 proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the courts found that the appointment was indeed ineligible and unilateral, and that no valid waiver had been established. The appointment was declared void, and the arbitral awards based on such appointment were set aside, allowing for the possibility of initiating fresh arbitration proceedings (!) (!) .

In summary, the case centers on whether the appointment of the arbitrator was legally valid, focusing on issues of eligibility, unilateral appointment, and waiver of rights, with the courts ruling that the appointment was invalid due to statutory violations.

Table of Content
1. factual background and context of the appeals. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments raised by the appellants regarding the ineligibility of the arbitrator. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. counterarguments presented by the respondent on arbitrator's eligibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27)
4. legal observations concerning the symmetrical treatment of parties in arbitration. (Para 30 , 32 , 33 , 40 , 56)
5. rationale on the necessity of express agreements for waiver of ineligibility. (Para 61 , 68 , 71 , 84)
6. clarification on the authority and jurisdiction relative to ineligible arbitrators. (Para 102 , 114 , 120)
7. conclusion of the court on the validity of the arbitrator's appointment and judgments made. (Para 123 , 124 , 125 , 126)

JUDGMENT :

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

1. Leave granted.

3. These appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO(OS) (COMM) Nos. 23 and 24 of 2025 respectively (hereinafter, the “Impugned Judgment”), by which the appeals filed by the appellants herein under Section 37 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 9

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHANBhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusAirports Authority of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (12)

Related Judgments

Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. VS Airports Authority of India - 2026 Supreme(SC) 9

BHADRA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 28

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 37209

M/S. M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CPWD - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 238

BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. vs AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2560

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. VS Amrapali Enterprises - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 593

Man Industries (india) Limited VS Indian Oil Corporation Limited - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1591

AIR FORCE NAVAL HOUSING BOARD Vs UMAXE PROJECTS PVT LTD - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 36209

Manmohan Bhimsen Goyal vs Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1933

Saraj Jyoti Dey, Jharkhand VS IndusInd Bank Limited, (Formerly known as Ashok Leyland Finance Limited) Rep by its Manager/Executive-Legal, Chennai - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 595

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority of India – Respondent