In Brief
The State of Bihar appealed against an arbitrator's appointment under the Central Arbitration Act, contending that a state-specific arbitration statute should apply instead. The Supreme Court held that where a contract explicitly stipulates the Central Act's applicability, the state statute does not override it. The Court also ruled that a provision in the state statute allowing the government to terminate tribunal members' tenure "at pleasure" was unconstitutional and violated Article 14 and the Rule of Law, as tribunal members perform quasi-judicial functions requiring independence and impartiality. The appeals were dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.