IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Vth and VIIth Schedules of the Arbitration Act do not cover barristers' chambers, and the general law of bias in India cannot be relied upon to resist execution. The Court applied the reasonable third person test and found no reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing that execution of foreign arbitral awards is the rule, and upholding objections is an exception.

ORDER :

The respondent - award debtor is resisting execution of the foreign arbitral award only on the ground of alleged bias and no other ground has been pressed while objecting to the execution. The allegation of bias is against one of the arbitrators, on the ground that the said arbitrator and the counsel appearing for the applicant before the arbitral tribunal belong to the same chambers of practice. Apart from various contentions raised on behalf of the respondent in this regard, it is specifically contended that the chamber practice of the concerned chamber can be said to be akin to practice of a law firm and that therefore, the specific entries in Schedules V and VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) are attracted, thereby supporting the allegation of bias raised against the said arbitrator. Bias being an aspect of fundamental policy of Indian law, is raised as a specific ground by the respondent in order to contend that the foreign award cannot be executed.

2. The facts in brief leading to filing of the execution application are that, the applicant - claimant as owners of a vessel entered into a Trip Time Charter with the respondent - award debtor. The vessel was taken on charter for a duration of approximately 25 to 40 days. The charter party agreement contained an arbitration clause, which specified that the arbitration would be conducted at London as per English Law and that the arbitrators and the umpire, if any, shall be members of the London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) and that the arbitration would be governed by English Law and LMAA Rules.

3. Disputes arose between the parties in the context of the said agreement and the applicant claimed that the respondent failed to make timely payments of hire and in this context, the applicant was constrained to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before this Court, bearing Commercial Arbitration Petition No.225 of 2017, for interim reliefs. On 30.03.2017, this Court directed the respondent to secure the claim of the applicant by furnishing a bank guarantee, which the respondent failed to furnish. In fact, the respondent filed review petition seeking review of the said order, which was dismissed on 27.04.2017. An appeal filed against the order was unilaterally withdrawn by the respondent on 03.05.2017 before the Division Bench of this Court. On 04.05.2017, this Court directed the respondent to disclose its assets on affidavit and thereafter on 09.05.2017, the respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- per month with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court till a total amount of Rs.4,80,00,000/- stood deposited. The said direction was complied with and the amount has remained in deposit with this Court.

4. On 22.05.2017, the applicant invoked arbitration and nominated Mr. Alan Oakley as its arbitrator. On 05.06.2017, the respondent nominated Mr. Patrick O’Donovan as its arbitrator. As the respondent objected to the appointment of Mr. Alan Oakley on the ground that he had been appointed by the respondent in another arbitration against their sub-charterers, the claimant agreed to revocation of the name of Mr.Alan Oakley and in his place the applicant appointed Mr. Bruce Harris as its appointed arbitrator. Upon the insistence of the respondent, on 25.01.2019, the arbitral tribunal appointed Ms. Clare Ambrose as the umpire. It was clarified that only in case of a disagreement between the arbitrators, the umpire would take over the proceedings. After completion of pleadings and exchange of skeleton arguments, the respondent requested Mr. Bruce Harris to recuse from the proceedings. This was objected to by the applicant. Mr. Bruce Harris refused to recuse himself for the reasons that were endorsed by the tribunal, including the umpire. Between 17.02.2019 to 02.04.2019, the arbitral proceedings continued and the arbitral tribunal published its detailed award and informed the parties. Later, at the reques