24. In Voestalpine [VoestalpineSchienen GmbH v. DMRC, (2017) 4 SCC
665 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 607] , this Court dealt with independence and
impartiality of the arbitrator as under : (SCC pp. 687-88 & 690-91,
paras 20 to 22 & 30)
“20. Independence and impartiality of the arbitrator are the hallmarks
of any arbitration proceedings. Rule against bias is one of the
fundamental principles of natural justice which applied to all judicial
and quasi-judicial proceedings. It is for this reason that
notwithstanding the fact that relationship between the parties to the
arbitration and the arbitrators themselves are contractual in nature and
the source of an arbitrator’s appointment is deduced from the
agreement entered into between the parties, notwithstanding the same
non-independence and non-impartiality of such arbitrator (though
contractually agreed upon) would render him ineligible to conduct the
arbitration. The genesis behind this rational is that even when an
arbitrator is appointed in terms of contract and by the parties to the
contract, he is independent of the parties. Functions and duties require
him to rise above the partisan interest of the parties and not to act in,
or so as to further, the particular interest of either parties. After all, the
arbitrator has adjudicatory role to perform and, therefore, he must be
independent of parties as well as impartial. The United Kingdom
Supreme Court has beautifully highlighted this aspect
in Hashwani v. Jivraj [Hashwani v. Jivraj, (2011) 1 WLR 1872 : 2011
UKSC 40] in the following words : (WLR p. 1889, para 45)
’45. … the dominant purpose of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators
is the impartial resolution of the dispute between the parties in
accordance with the terms of the agreement and, although the contract
between the parties and the arbitrators would be a contract for the
provision of personal services, they were not personal services under the
direction of the parties.’
[ad_1]
Source link