The court ruled that mere allegations of conflict of interest based on internet searches do not establish the de jure inability of an arbitrator under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGEMENT :

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

Context and Background:

1. Both these Applications have been filed invoking Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). Each Application challenges the mandate of the respective arbitrator appointed in the underlying proceedings.

2. The parties to the two arbitral proceedings (and to these Applications) are identical – the Applicant, Kalyani Aditya Mineral Ltd. (“Kalyani Aditya”) and Aditya Birla Group Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. (“Aditya Birla Trading”) 2025.02.14 17:45:48

3. The proceedings are being conducted at the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (“MCIA”), in terms of the agreed arbitration clause in their agreements, by which the parties had agreed to subject their disputes to resolution at the MCIA.

4. The two Applications are (i) Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.8657 of 2024; and (ii) Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.7917 of 2024.

Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.8657 of 2024:

Google Search Summary Results:

5. Learned Counsel for Kalyani Aditya primarily presses into service an internet search result that is appended to Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.8657 of 2024 at Exhibit AA (Page 514) as the basis for the challenge. The challenge to the arbitrator is based on the premise that when Kalyani Aditya did a Google search of the Learned Arbitrator’s name along with the name of law firms and their partners who are on the Governing Council of the MCIA, the search results when “Rohit Gandhi” and “Shardul” were searched for, returned two summarised entries on the Google page.

6. The Google search led to two results, based on which it is alleged that the Learned Sole Arbitrator (Mr. Rohit Gandhi) is associated with a law firm titled Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, whose Managing Partner Ms. Pallavi Shroff represents other companies in the Aditya Birla Group in various Courts, and is on the Governing Council of the MCIA.

7. Therefore, the allegation is that the MCIA has selected an Arbitrator, who is an associate of a law firm whose Managing Partner is involved in the governance of MCIA and whose law firm represents various affiliates of Aditya Birla Trading.

8. The crux of the contention is contained in Paragraph 4.25 and 4.26 which are set out in Pages 47 and 48 of the Application, and are reproduced below:-

4.25 It has also come to the knowledge of the Petitioner from Page no. 6 of the journal published by MCIA regarding ADR week 2023 as conducted on 10.10.2023 that one of the event sponsors was Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (a law firm in which one of the members of the council of MCIA i.e. Ms. Pallavi Shroff is a managing partner). Admittedly, the seminar of MCIA received sponsorship from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (a law firm in which one of the members of the council of MCIA i.e. Ms. Pallavi Shroff is a managing partner) and the said law firm providing legal services to the affiliates of Respondent no.1 company in various courts. Interrelated associations among the MCIA Council member, Respondent no.1 and its affiliates raise justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the Learned Arbitrator which has been appointed by Respondent no.3. Copy of Page no. 6 of the journal published by MCIA regarding ADR week 2023 as conducted on 10.10.2023 is enclosed as Exhibit - “Z”.

Needless to say, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (a law firm in which one of the members of the council of MCIA i.e. Ms. Pallavi Shroff is a managing partner) served not only as consultants/advisors to affiliates of Respondent no. l & its affiliates but also sponsored the