Analysis of Supreme Court Judgement in The Government of Haryana PWD Haryana Branch vs. M/s. G.F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

In first entry, the words “is an” indicates that the person so nominated as an Arbitrator is only disqualified if he/she is a present/current employee, consultant, or advisor of one of the parties.

The first entry to the Fifth Schedule reads as under :

“Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

1. The Arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.”

Entry 1 of the Fifth Schedule and the Seventh Schedule are identical. The Entry indicates that a person, who is related to a party as an employee, consultant, or an advisor, is disqualified to act as an arbitrator. The words “is an” indicates that the person so nominated is only disqualified if he/she is a present/current employee, consultant, or advisor of one of the parties.

An arbitrator who has “any other” past or present “business relationship” with the party is also disqualified. The word “other” used in Entry 1, would indicate a relationship other than an employee, consultant or an advisor. The word “other” cannot be used to widen the scope of the entry to include past/former employees.

Judgement link : https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/24650/24650_2018_Judgement_03-Jan-2019.pdf