Elevation of Arbitrator as Judge Does Not Affect Award Passed Before Oath: Calcutta High Court

In a significant ruling under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Calcutta High Court has held that an arbitral award passed hours before the arbitrator took oath as a High Court judge remains valid. The Court also retrospectively extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal to validate the award.

A Timely Award Before Oath

The dispute arose from a Facility Service Agreement between The Hooghly Mills Company Limited and Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited. On February 5, 2021, the High Court appointed Advocate Partha Pratim Roy as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The proceedings were consolidated from four related petitions concerning two units.

After pleadings were completed, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended several times with the consent of the parties and by court orders. The last extension, granted on January 28, 2026, for a period of six months, expired before the award was rendered.

The Objection and Its Rejection

When Hooghly Mills moved the High Court under Section 29A(4) seeking extension of the mandate, Acumen Marketing objected on the ground that the learned arbitrator, having been elevated to the Bench, was not competent to pass the award. The Court dismissed this objection as "misconceived."

Justice Gaurang Kanth noted that Roy assumed judicial office upon taking oath at 4:15 p.m. on August 8, 2026, whereas the award was passed earlier that day, at 2:00 p.m., prior to his elevation. The Court observed, "The objection, therefore, does not affect the validity or publication of the award."

The Expired Mandate and Retrospective Cure

The Court examined the timeline and found that there had been no "undue or unwarranted delay" on the part of the Sole Arbitrator in conducting the proceedings. Since the award had already been rendered and no prejudice was demonstrated by either party due to the lapse, the Court exercised its powers under Section 29A(4) to retrospectively extend the mandate.

The Court directed that the mandate be extended from the date of expiry of the previous extension up to and including August 8, 2026, "so as to validate the arbitral proceedings and the award passed on that date."

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the principle that the validity of an arbitral award hinges on the arbitrator's competence at the time of its rendering. The Court clarified that elevation to judicial office after the award does not retroactively invalidate it.

Conclusion

With these findings, the High Court disposed of the petition, validating the arbitral award and affirming the efficacy of retrospective mandate extensions under the Arbitration Act.