Arbitrator ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule requires direct disqualifying involvement, not prior opinions or earlier arbitrations.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 draws a clear distinction between challenges based on justifiable doubts under the Fifth Schedule and ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule. A Fifth Schedule objection concerns disclosure and the challenge procedure, while a Seventh Schedule ground affects the validity of the appointment and may support termination under Section 14. A prior professional opinion in an unrelated matter does not amount to a disqualifying business relationship, and prior participation as arbitrator in earlier disputes between the same parties is not, by itself, previous involvement in the same dispute. On the facts stated, no material showed bias or lack of objective judgment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitrators' appointments were liable to be terminated on the ground of ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether prior involvement in earlier proceedings or a prior professional opinion in an unrelated matter disqualified them.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts under the Fifth Schedule and ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule. A Fifth Schedule objection concerns disclosure and challenge procedure and is not to be finally adjudicated at the threshold in the absence of an award, whereas a Seventh Schedule disqualification goes to the root of the appointment and may be invoked under Section 14 as de jure inability. Item 1 of the Seventh Schedule was held to concern a business relationship, not a single professional opinion given in an unrelated matter, and Item 15 requires legal advice on the dispute itself. Item 16 was construed as previous involvement in the very dispute in some other capacity, not mere participation as arbitrator in earlier arbitrations between the same parties. Prior awards in earlier references did not by themselves establish bias or ineligibility, and no material showed any lack of open mind or objective judgment.

Conclusion: The challenged appointments were not hit by the Seventh Schedule, no termination of mandate was warranted, and the appeals failed.

---