$~75 & 76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 103/2026, CM APPLs.24033-34/2026 TITAGARH RAIL SYSTEMS LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Mr. Tanay Agarwal, Mr. Shivam Bhimsaria, Mr.

Abhiraj Choudhary and Ms. Mili Tomar versus RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Amit Acharya, GP, Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr. Abhimanyu and Ms. Anushka Sarraf, Advocates and Mr Vinay Kaushik Government Pleader + FAO(OS) (COMM) 104/2026, CM APPL. 24043/2026 TITAGARH RAIL SYSTEMS LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Mr. Tanay Agarwal, Mr. Shivam Bhimsaria, Mr. Abhiraj Choudhary and Ms. Mili Tomar, Advocates versus RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Amit Acharya, GP, Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr. Abhimanyu and Ms. Anushka Sarraf, Advocates and Mr Vinay Kaushik Government Pleader CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 13.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

A. The lis

1. These appeals, under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, 1"the1996Act"hereinafter , assail a judgment and an order, both dated 26 February 2026, in OMP (Comm) 475/2024, 2RailwayBoardv.TitagarhRailSystemsLtd and OMP (Comm) 503/2024, 3RailwayBoardv.TitagarhRailSystemsLtd , rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The principal judgment stands rendered in OMP (Comm) 475/2024, with the order in OMP (Comm) 503/2024 merely recording that the arbitral award, which formed subject matter of challenge in both OMPs, already stood set aside in OMP (Comm) 475/2025 and that, therefore, no separate orders were called for. The impugned judgment and order have, needless to say, been rendered under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. 2. The learned Single Judge has allowed the OMPs filed by the Respondent-Railway Board on the ground that the learned arbitrator, who had rendered the award forming subject matter of challenge, having been a serving employee of the Railway Board, his very appointment as an arbitrator was in the teeth of Section 12(5)⁴ read with the VII Schedule to the 1996 Act. Resultantly, the award rendered by the learned arbitrator has been held to be unsustainable, as the learned arbitrator was incompetent to arbitrate. In arriving at his conclusion, the learned Single Judge has placed exhaustive reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bhadra International (India) (P) Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India, 52026SCCOnLineSC7

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, Titagarh Rail Systems Ltd, 6"TRSL"hereinafter has preferred the present appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the 1996 Act.

4. We have heard Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for TRSL and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, learned CGSC, at length.

B. The Issue

5. Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao does not dispute the fact that the learned arbitrator was facially ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator in terms of the main body of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act. His precise contention is that the facts of the present case attract the proviso to 4(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the

SeventhScheduleshallbeineligibletobeappointedasanarbitrator:

Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicabilityofthissub-sectionbyanexpressagreementinwriting.

Section 12(5), as the parties had, subsequent to the disputes arising between them, expressly waived the applicability of Section 12(5). To that extent, he submits that the decision in Bhadra International does not operate against the arbitral award or its legality. The learned Single Judge has,