Steel Authority of India Limited v. British Marine PLC
Court – Delhi High Court
Citation – O.M.P. (COMM) 20/2023 and I.A. 1116/2023
Date – 13.10.2025
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that interpretation of similar clause in an earlier Arbitration does not render Arbitrator’s current appointment invalid.
The Court held,
“54. Applying the aforementioned judgements to the present case and tested on the anvil of the law laid down and observations made, in my view, Capt. Berry and Mr. Chakraborty were not de jure ineligible on the touchstone of doctrine of issue conflict. No doubt both had dealt with interpretation of Clause 62 in the Sea Spray arbitration and taken a particular view, but as elucidated in the aforesaid judgments, this by itself is not a disqualification sans any evidence that the Arbitrators will decide the issue with a closed mind and without any objectivity or were not impartial in the earlier arbitration involving the Petitioner, which I may note, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate. Objection of the Petitioner is mere presence based and no cogent material has been placed which shows that the two Arbitrators were partial or decided with a predetermined disposition. This contention is thus rejected.
55. Insofar as the contention that the two Arbitrators did not give a declaration in the format prescribed under Sixth Schedule of the 1996 Act is concerned, be it noted that as a matter of fact, disclosure was given albeit not in the format given in Sixth Schedule since the disclosure was given prior to the amendment in Section 12. The question whether this is enough to hold that the two Arbitrators were de jure ineligible and consequently, the award vitiates on this ground in the present case, is to be answered in the negative both in law and on a factual note and in taking this view, I find strength from the judgment of this Court in Manish Anand and Others v. Fiitjee Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7587.”
Please reach out to us at rohit.lalwani@amlegals.com in case of any query.