Court advises parties to approach the Supreme Court for issues arising from Arbitrator's recusal and SIAC actions
In a significant decision, the Karnataka High Court has declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in a dispute involving Waterline Hotels Private Limited and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The case centered around the recusal of an arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator, a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, had recused himself following procedural disagreements with the SIAC Secretariat.
The dispute arose after the SIAC Secretariat provided substantive comments on the draft arbitral award, leading to repeated exchanges of the draft between the Arbitrator and the Secretariat. The Arbitrator eventually expressed a desire to withdraw from the proceedings, prompting the SIAC to initiate steps for appointing a new arbitrator. The petitioner, Waterline Hotels, challenged these actions, alleging institutional bias and procedural overreach by the SIAC.
Represented by Advocate Sri Navkesh Munish Batra, Waterline Hotels contended that the SIAC Secretariat had exceeded its authority and that the dispute should be subject to the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. However, Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court emphasized that any matters concerning the recusal or substitution of an arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court fall exclusively within the domain of the Supreme Court.
The court observed that the Supreme Court, in its order dated May 8, 2026, acknowledged the Arbitrator's recusal but did not issue further directions. Justice Govindaraj noted that the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over issues related to the arbitral tribunal's constitution and advised the petitioner to seek appropriate directions from the Supreme Court.
In a detailed analysis, the High Court addressed the petitioner's grievances concerning alleged institutional bias, prolonged arbitral proceedings, and procedural irregularities. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it would be inappropriate to adjudicate these issues, given the Supreme Court's initial involvement in appointing the Arbitrator.
The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and the appropriate forum for addressing disputes related to arbitration proceedings initially overseen by the Supreme Court. The High Court's decision effectively directs the parties to seek redress from the apex court for any consequential matters arising from the Arbitrator's recusal and the SIAC's actions.
This ruling highlights the complexities involved in international arbitration and the jurisdictional boundaries between different judicial bodies in India. The case also raises important questions about the role of arbitral institutions and their interaction with judicially appointed arbitrators.
Bottom line:-
Karnataka High Court held that it would be inappropriate to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate disputes arising from the cessation of the mandate of an Arbitrator appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
