An arbitrator's alleged bias requires proof of substantial control and an ongoing relationship with a party, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The genesis of the present appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”) is an award dated February 29, 2020 passed by a learned Senior Advocate of this Court in the capacity of Arbitrator, who was appointed by Court on consent, as recorded in the order dated August 1, 2014 passed in a suit between the parties bearing CS No. 344 of 2014.

2. AP No. 364 of 2020 was filed by one Gopal Das Bagri and AP No. 402 of 2020 by Feather Touch Limited, both award debtors, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, challenging the said award. The said two applications appeared before the learned Single Judge along with two connected applications for enforcement of the award, bearing EC No. 145 of 2020 and EC No. 81 of 2022, and interlocutory applications filed therein.

3. The learned Single Judge took up both the applications under Section 34 for hearing on a preliminary issue as to whether the award was tainted by fraud, corruption and bias. By a judgment dated July 27, 2023, which is under challenge in the present appeals, the learned Single Judge held the preliminary issue against award holders, thereby allowing the applications under of the 1996 Act and setting aside the impugned award, coming to a finding that the same fell foul of the mandate under Section 12 of the 1996 Act, particularly Grounds 11, 15 and 20 of the Fifth Schedule and Ground 15 of the Seventh Schedule, read with Explanation 2 thereof.

4. The award debtors/applicants under Section 34 had initially challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to take up the same on the ground that the learned Arbitrator (since deceased) was a Senior Advocate of this Court having considerable practice, which might sway the court in upholding his award. Such challenge was turned down by the learned Single Judge with a token cost of Rs. 11/-. The award debtors filed Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 1173-1174 of 2021, Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 1203-1204 of 2021 and Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 282-283 of 2021 for transfer of the applications to some other High Court, which were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated September 24, 2021. While dismissing the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, inter alia, that even assuming that the learned Arbitrator was a very respected member of the Bar, it was sure that the High Court at Calcutta would examine the allegations of misconduct without being influenced by the alleged status of the learned Arbitrator. It was also observed that even assuming that five Hon'ble Judges of the Calcutta High Court had recused themselves, that was no ground to express an apprehension about the entire High Court at Calcutta, then consisting of more than 30 Judges, by contending that the petitioners therein would not get justice from the said Court.

5. Immediately before the hearing of the present appeals were taken up by this Court, the Court made it clear to learned counsel for both sides that the learned Arbitrator was an eminent counsel of this Court and known to the Bench in such capacity; although none of the members of the Bench had any personal kinship with the Arbitrator, but since allegations of fraud and bias were made against the learned Arbitrator, the parties should express at the outset whether they had any objection to this Court taking up the matter. Upon such option being given, the appellants expressed through