Arbitrator bias challenge fails where prior agreement drafting alone does not prove partiality or denial of natural justice.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitrator may be challenged only on facts giving rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality, or for failure to meet agreed qualifications, and such challenge must be raised within the prescribed time. Prior participation in drafting the agreement, without more, was held insufficient to show bias, misconduct, or a real apprehension of partiality. Section 18 requires equal treatment and a full opportunity to present the case, but it does not permit a party to delay proceedings indefinitely or claim denial of natural justice without showing actual prejudice. On the record, repeated opportunities were given and the challenge to the mandate and natural justice failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside on the grounds of alleged bias or lack of independence and impartiality of one arbitrator, and alleged denial of natural justice and reasonable opportunity in the arbitral proceedings.

Analysis: Under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitrator may be challenged only where circumstances exist giving rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality, or where the agreed qualifications are lacking. A challenge under Section 13(2) must be raised within the statutory time after the relevant facts become known. The proceedings showed that the challenge was considered by the tribunal and that repeated opportunities were given to the parties. The mere fact that one arbitrator had earlier participated in drafting the agreement, without more, did not establish bias, misconduct, or a real apprehension of partiality. Section 18 required equal treatment and full opportunity, but that obligation did not confer an unlimited right to delay proceedings or to insist on procedure irrespective of the party's own conduct. The record supported the view that the appellant repeatedly failed to cooperate, sought adjournments, and did not demonstrate prejudice from the manner in which the tribunal proceeded.

Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitrator's mandate and the allegation of denial of natural justice failed; the award was not liable to be set aside on these grounds.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the arbitral award as sustained by the trial court remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party challenging an arbitrator must show circumstances creating justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality or actual procedural prejudice; mere prior involvement in drafting an agreement, without more, is insufficient to establish bias or a violation of natural justice where the tribunal afforded reasonable opportunity and the complaining party's own conduct contributed to the progress of the proceedings.

---