Repeated arbitrator appointments are not automatically barred where disclosures are made and no objective doubt on impartiality is shown.

Repeated appointment of the same arbitrator or arbitral tribunal in disputes arising from the same contract is not, by itself, barred by Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Entry 22 of the Fifth Schedule. The Court held that Section 12 and the Fifth Schedule require an objective assessment of whether circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality, viewed from a neutral third person's perspective, while ineligibility under Section 12(5) is confined to the Seventh Schedule. On the facts, the required disclosures had been made and no Seventh Schedule ineligibility was shown, so the objection to reference of the disputes to that tribunal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether appointment of the same arbitrator or arbitral tribunal in multiple arbitrations arising out of the same contract is barred by Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Entry 22 of the Fifth Schedule, and whether such appointment gives rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality.

Analysis: Section 12, as amended, requires disclosure of circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality, and the Fifth Schedule serves as a guide for that assessment. Entry 22 of the Fifth Schedule addresses repeated appointments within the past three years and is meant to prevent special affinity or a perceived tendency in favour of the appointing party. The assessment is objective and must be made from the standpoint of a neutral third person. The ineligibility under Section 12(5) is confined to circumstances falling within the Seventh Schedule. A broad and commonsensical construction shows that Entry 22 is not intended to prohibit, as a rule, reference of multiple disputes arising from the same contract to the same arbitral tribunal, particularly where such reference is made for convenience, avoidance of duplication, and saving of time. On the facts, the arbitrator had made the necessary disclosures and no circumstance attracting ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule was shown.

Conclusion: The appointment of the second arbitral tribunal was not barred and did not create justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality; the objection to reference of the disputes to that tribunal failed.

---