Arbitrator neutrality and party autonomy under the amended law: restricted panel not invalid, and court appointment was refused.

The amended arbitration law is directed at arbitrator neutrality, independence and impartiality while preserving party autonomy unless a statutory ineligibility applies. Ineligibility arises only where the arbitrator's relationship with a party, counsel or the dispute falls within the Seventh Schedule; a panel limited to serving or retired engineers from government departments or public sector undertakings was not, on these facts, shown to fall within those disqualifying categories. The contractual challenge and appointment mechanism therefore remained operative, and the court appointment of an independent tribunal was rejected, though the panel process should be broad-based and not unduly restrict the other party's choice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the panel of arbitrators maintained by the respondent was invalid under the amended arbitration law on the ground that it was confined to serving or retired engineers of government departments or public sector undertakings, and whether the Court should appoint an independent arbitral tribunal instead of following the contractual appointment mechanism.

Analysis: The amended arbitration law was treated as aimed at securing neutrality, independence, and impartiality of arbitrators, while preserving party autonomy so far as it does not conflict with statutory ineligibility. A person becomes ineligible only if the relationship with a party, counsel, or the dispute falls within the categories in the Seventh Schedule. The mere fact that proposed panel members were serving or retired government or public sector engineers did not by itself place them in any of those disqualifying categories, since they were not shown to be employees, consultants, advisors, or otherwise connected with the respondent within the meaning of the statute. The Court also noted that the challenge procedure under the contract could not be displaced on the present facts, though the panel selection mechanism ought to be broad-based and the choice given to the opposite party should not be unduly restricted.

Conclusion: The panel was not held to be invalid on the ground urged, and the request for court appointment of an arbitral tribunal was rejected; the petitioner was left to nominate its arbitrator from the panel supplied by the respondent.

---