New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Verma (Retd) has moved the top court against a Rajasthan High Court order that had reduced the already-paid fee to an arbitral tribunal led by him, while holding it responsible for giving unwarranted adjournments and lack of procedural discipline.
In his appeal Justice Verma has expressed reservation over what he called serious and disparaging observations in the High Court’s order against the arbitrators, including him. The High Court had described the conduct of the arbitral tribunal as “lethargic” and called it a “casual approach,” which “undermined the very spirit of arbitration,” and demonstrated “lack of procedural discipline”.
Justice Verma heads the three-member arbitral tribunal, also comprising former High Court judges justices Dinesh Chandra Somani (Retd) and N. Kumar (Retd).
Justice Verma’s appeal was listed Friday for hearing before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Instead of issuing notice on his appeal, the bench said it would be heard Monday along with the appeals filed by the two parties contesting the arbitration.
On 27 May, the Rajasthan High Court had fixed a timeline to decide an arbitration dispute between HCL Infosystems and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (JVVNL) over a technology contract. The tribunal was hearing the arbitration since 2019.
Tribunal members were told to return the fee after adjusting the revised fee, fixed in terms of the High Court order, to parties involved in the dispute. A 30-day deadline to complete the hearings and another 15 days to pronounce the final award was ordered.
The High Court judgment highlighted the case as a testament to a “deeper” problem within the arbitration ecosystem and raised concerns over the alternative dispute redressal mechanism’s efficacy as a quick remedy to commercial litigation.
Both HCL Infosystems and JVVNL questioned the High Court order. While the former was aggrieved with the timeline to conclude arbitration proceedings and deliver the award, JVVNL argued when High Court had faulted the arbitrators for the delay it should have reconstituted the tribunal with new members.
A partial vacation bench had in the last week of June stayed the operation of two High Court directions, asking the tribunal to declare the award within 15 days and return the fee.
Justice Verma’s plea in the Supreme Court raises a technical challenge to the High Court order. It says the High Court has traveled beyond its jurisdiction by fixing a timeline. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the High Court to extend the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal, but not to dictate the manner, schedule or pace of the proceedings.
The directions to conduct day-to-day hearings and requiring the Tribunal to pronounce the award within a specific period would amount to judicial control over the arbitration process, the former top court judge has contended.
In another impermissible intrusion, Justice Verma added, the High Court also directed that the arbitral fees already paid be reduced at the rate of 5percent per month of delay until final disposal. The order also included refund of the reduced fee to the parties in proportion to their respective contribution.
There is no provision in the law that authorises a court to issue such a directive, Justice Verma argued.
The High Court’s conclusion that the arbitral tribunal was responsible for the delay was strongly rebutted. Justice Verma said the case file comprises more than 50,000 pages, and approximately 22 witnesses were cross-examined over 88 sessions.
Besides, more than 13 interim applications involving contentious and complex questions of law were adjudicated and an interim award too was declared on 25 September, 2025.
The proceedings got affected by the death of one of the co-arbitrators, a circumstance beyond the Tribunal’s control. Also, he claimed, there was a mid-way change of lawyers of JVVNL during the final arguments and this required fixed dates to be rescheduled. Both parties were blamed for seeking repeated adjournments on multiple grounds, which were accommodated by the Tribunal, considering the gravity of the grounds urged.
Placing the entire record before the top court, the judges said it demonstrated that the Tribunal consistently reserved four to five hearing days every month for the hearing and was not responsible for the delay. The delay, if any, was attributable solely to the parties and circumstances arising during the proceedings.
Therefore, they argued, adverse orders by the High Court were not “merely unwarranted but unsupported” by the record and have no foundation either in fact or in law.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)