2026 INSC 6 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 37-38 of 2026 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16107-16108 of 2025]

BHADRA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA)

PVT. LTD. & ORS. …APPELLANTS VERSUS AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRESH Date: 2026.01.05 Reason:

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

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

INDEX I. FACTUAL MATRIX .................................................................................................... 3 II. JUDGMENT OF THE SINGLE JUDGE ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ACT, 1996 ................................................................................. 8 III. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ...................................................................................... 9 IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS .................................. 11 V. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .................................. 14 VI. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ....................................................................... 16 VII. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 17 i. Whether the sole arbitrator could be said to have become “ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator” by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1996? .................................................................................................. 17 a. Interplay between Equal Treatment of Parties and Party Autonomy .................... 17 b. Scope and Application of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1996 ................ 21 c. Appointment of the sole arbitrator in light of sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1996 ............................................................................................................................... 26 d. De Jure inability of the arbitrator to perform his functions ..................................... 35 ii. Whether the parties could be said to have waived the applicability of sub- section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1996, by way of their conduct, either expressed or implied? ............................................................................................... 40 a. Meaning and Import of the expression “express agreement in writing” used in proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, 1996 ............................................... 41 b. “Statement of Claim” as a parameter of waiver ....................................................... 49 c. “Extension of Time” under Section 29A of the Act, 1996 as a parameter of waiver ............................................................................................................................................... 50 d. “Continued Participation” as a parameter of waiver ............................................... 52 iii. Whether the appellants could have raised an objection to the appointment of the sole arbitrator for the first time in an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996? .............................................................................................................. 54 a. Challenge to the ineligibility of the arbitrator during the proceedings .................. 55 b. Challenge to the ineligibility of the arbitrator after arbitral award has been passed ............................................................................................................................................... 60 c. Challenge to the ineligibility of the arbitrator at any stage of the proceedings .... 64 VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 70

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are same, and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analo