In Brief
This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether a High Court can retrospectively invalidate its own arbitrator appointment order. A contractor and Bihar state public works agency had a 2014 bridge construction contract with a clause requiring the agency's Managing Director to appoint any arbitrator, or else no arbitration would occur. After disputes arose and the High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in 2021, extensive proceedings followed (70+ hearings, joint extensions). The High Court later recalled its own appointment order, treating the unilateral appointing clause as unenforceable. The Supreme Court held that once an arbitrator is validly appointed, the court becomes functus officio and cannot review the order; unilateral appointment clauses are severable but do not invalidate the core arbitration agreement; and parties' participation constitutes waiver of procedural objections. The judgment reinforces minimal judicial intervention in arbitration and reaffirms that arbitration agreements must be given effect despite flawed procedural mechanisms.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.