The obligation of arbitrators to disclose any potential bias is fundamental; failure to do so can render arbitration proceedings vexatious and warrant court intervention to prevent irreparable harm.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

I.A. 9724/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

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

PRELUDE

“Even in the most benevolent of legal orders, if adjudication is not impartial, law degenerates into mere command.”

- Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law (1964)

In the matters revolving around the arbitration, to intervene or not to intervene has been the most debatable question before the Courts. This question assumes a heightened significance when the superstructure of the arbitration process predicates on the foundational pillars of party autonomy, minimal judicial oversight and finality of awards. However, with the evolution of the arbitration mechanism, which has lately transcended notional national boundaries, the presumed absoluteness of such autonomy is brought into question before the aisles of the Courts. In cases where the cross-border arbitral proceedings deviate from the overarching norms of conscionability and public policy or appear to be tainted by oppression and abuse of process, the need for judicial scrutiny becomes pressing. The present case is no different and presents a significant challenge. Put succinctly, it calls upon the Court to navigate the enduring tension between judicial restraint in arbitration proceedings and the imperative to uphold impartiality in the adjudicatory mechanism.

2. It is in the aforesaid context, the Court proceed that the instant suit emanates, seeking a declaration and injunction against the continuation of arbitration proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as “ICC”) on the ground that the proceedings before the ICC are vexatious, unconscionable, oppressive, and violative of the public policy of India.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE

3. The factual matrix of the present case would exhibit that the plaintiff is a public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises (Department of Heavy Industry), Government of India and the defendant is a military and security systems integrator company based out of Oman. On 29.06.2015, the Ministry of Defence, Oman, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and appointed it as the main contractor for a supply and build project which involved inter-alia the design, supply, installation, integration and commissioning of the border security system at the Oman-Yemen border. Thereafter, on 21.09.2015, the plaintiff entered into a sub-contract agreement for the design, supply, installation, integration, and commission of the border security system in relation to one Engineer-3 Project, specifically covering Sections 3 and 4 on the Oman-Yemen border. The said agreement includes an arbitration clause i.e., Article 19, which stipulates that the Courts at New Del