The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a publication of an arbitral award by an arbitrator, after the release of a warrant of his appointment by the President asa High Court judge, would make the award invalid.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice on a plea filed against the Calcutta High Court's order, which had extended the mandate of an arbitral tribunal comprising a sole arbitrator, Partha Pratim Roy, who, after being recommended for appointment as an Additional Judge of the High Court and the issuance of the President's warrant on August 7, had published an award on August 8, though his mandate had expired on July 27.
The Court framed the following question for its consideration:
“whether the Arbitrator could have published his award on 8th August, 2026 after the President had signed the warrant of appointment of such arbitrator as an Additional Judge of the High Court at Calcutta and a notification to that effect was duly published on 7th August, 2026 as well as when his mandate had ceased on 27th July, 2026?”
The Court will also examine the correctness of the impugned order to extend the mandate of the arbitrator, which was done after a publication of a notification of a President's warrant of the arbitrator appointment as Additional High Court Judge.
“whether the Single Judge was justified in extending the mandate of the Arbitrator and thereby grant legitimacy to an award which prima facie is void ab initio?”, the Court questioned.
Till the next date of hearing, which is posted on November 28, 2026, the operation of the arbitral award was ordered to be stayed.