Bombay High Court Upholds Validity Of ODR Clause, Refuses Substitution Of Arbitrator Appointed Through ODR Platform

The Petitioner i.e. Amit Chaurasia (“Chaurasia”) filed an application for substitution of arbitrator. The Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan reviewed the contract between the parties and observed that the parties had agreed to ODR at the hands of an ODR agency. The ODR agency had given opportunities to the parties to conciliate and thereafter arbitration commenced. It was further observed that even Chaurasia did not deny receiving the intimations from the ODR agency. Rather, his contention was that there was no consensus on the appointment of an arbitrator and on that ground alone, the substitution was sought.

The Court held, “Having examined the record, it is apparent that one cannot possibly conclude that there was no consensus simply because the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, entailed conciliation and arbitration by a named and pre-agreed Online Dispute Resolution Agency portal.” Accordingly, the petition seeking substitution of the arbitrator was found misconceived.

It is to be noted that this is a clear judicial recognition of the enforceability of digital arbitration clauses and ODR based appointment mechanisms which gives impetus to the growing digital arbitration ecosystem in India.

Case Title – Amit Chaurasia v ICICI Bank Limited

Case No. – Arbitration Petition (L) No. 35627 of 2025

Appearance-

For Petitioner - Ms. Sanaya Dadachanji, a/w Resham Vasant Savla, i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., for the Petitioner

For Respondent - Appearance not received for Respondent.

Date – 10.12.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order