The failure of an arbitrator to disclose a subsequent appointment and the non-supply of documents to a party violate the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, undermining the integrity of the arbitration process.

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. By way of this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], the petitioner assails an award dated 11.08.2022 rendered by a learned sole arbitrator adjudicating disputes between the parties under a Concession Agreement dated 23.03.2018 [“the Agreement”].

A. Background facts:

2. The Agreement concerned a concession to develop, market, set up, operate, maintain, and manage retail outlets at various Category A and Category B airports, including the Chaudhary Charan Singh Airport at Lucknow [“Lucknow Airport”]. It was entered into pursuant to a request for proposal issued by the respondent No. 1.

3. Disputes arose between the parties under the Agreement, and the petitioner claimed the following reliefs:

“a. That the Claimant be awarded a rebate/refund of the Concession Fee of Rs. 2,32,83,448.44 (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Two Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight and Forty Four Paise) towards the delay by the Respondent in obtaining the security clearance of the Locations, as per the particulars of claim set out in Exhibit C - 32 hereto;

b. That the Claimant be awarded a rebate/refund of the Concession Fee of Rs.1,04,97,151/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand and One Hundred and Fifty One Only) paid by the Claimant in respect of the Locations in and around Gate No.4 of the Airport for the period July 21,2018 to December 22, 2018, in terms of particulars of claim set out in Exhibit C-33 hereto;

c. That the Claimant be awarded a rebate/refund of the Concession Fee of Rs.61,66,708.53/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight and Fifty Three paise only) paid by the Claimant in respect of Locations inside the Visitors Area for the period between January 2019 to June 02, 2019 and August 10, 2019 to August 20, 2019 and January 20, 2020 to February 02, 2020 and May 25, 2020 to November 01, 2020, in terms of the particulars of claim set out in Exhibit C - 34 hereto;

d. That the Claimant be awarded a rebate/refund of the Fixed Charge and Electricity Duty aggregating to Rs. 9,55,791/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One Only) paid by the Claimant to the Respondent in terms of the particulars of claim set out Exhibit C - 35 hereto;

e. That the Claimant be awarded a rebate of Rs. 2,56,437/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Seven Only) towards the Concession Fee paid by the Claimant for the period between July 21, 2018, to August 27, 2018, on account of delay in handing over of Locations identified as R-13, in terms of particulars of claim set out in Exhibit C- 36 hereto;

f. That the invoices dated October 13, 2020, October 29, 2020, and February 10, 2021 (Exhibit C - 30), for the amount of Rs. 1,44,300/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Three Hundred Only) raised by the Respondent against the Claimant be declared as null and void and cancelled and grant credit notes for the same.

g. Cancellation of any interest and/or penalty levied by the Respondent on account of any of the above in terms of particulars of claim set out in Exhibit C-38 hereto;

h. Costs of this arbitration;

i. Such other and further reliefs that this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The claims were contested by respondent No. 1.

5. By the impugned award, the learned arbitrator awarded a total sum of approximately Rs. 20 lakhs alongwith interest, out of the petitioner’s claims. The petitioner assails the award, inasmuch as the rest of its claims were rejected.

B. Scope of challenge:

6. I have heard Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Arun Sanwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the following two grounds:

a. Mr. Rao submitted that the award is vitiated by failure of the learned arbitrator to comply with Section 12 (2) of the Act, as he failed to disclose his appointment by the respondent No. 1 in another arbitration, during the pendenc