Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India, 2026
It clarifies the narrow scope of waiver under Section 12(5), protecting parties from coerced or implied consent.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
7 January 2026
Judges
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
A licence agreement was entered into between Bhadra International and the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
-
Clause 78 of the agreement empowered the Chairman of AAI to appoint a sole arbitrator.
-
Upon disputes arising, arbitration was invoked and an arbitrator was appointed by the Chairman of AAI.
-
The appellants challenged the appointment, contending that it violated Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act.
-
The Delhi High Court rejected the challenge and held that the appointment was not unilateral since arbitration was invoked by the appellants.
-
The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s refusal to set aside the arbitral award.
Issues
-
Whether participation in arbitral proceedings amounts to waiver of the right to object to the ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
-
Whether waiver of the right under Section 12(5) can be inferred by conduct in the absence of an express written agreement?
-
Whether appointment of an arbitrator by a statutorily ineligible person is ex facie invalid?
-
Whether an objection to lack of jurisdiction of an arbitrator can be raised at any stage of arbitral proceedings?
Held
-
Waiver of the right under Section 12(5) can occur only through a clear, unequivocal, express agreement in writing.
-
There is no concept of deemed waiver under Section 12(5) based on conduct alone.
-
Participation in arbitral proceedings does not validate a one-sided appointment mechanism.
-
An arbitrator who is statutorily ineligible lacks jurisdiction to render an award.
-
An objection to inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, including post-award.
Analysis
-
The judgment strengthens the principle of independence and impartiality of arbitrators.
-
It clarifies the narrow scope of waiver under Section 12(5), protecting parties from coerced or implied consent.
-
The ruling reinforces equal treatment of parties under Section 18 even at the appointment stage.
-
It curbs unilateral appointment practices prevalent in government and public sector contracts.
-
The decision aligns arbitration law with constitutional values of fairness and procedural equality.
-
It provides clear remedial routes under Sections 14, 15, and 34 depending on the stage of proceedings.