In Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India[1], the Kerala HC has held that an allegation of bias cannot be raised as a ground to seek the substitution of an Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There is great difference between substitution of an Arbitrator under Section 15(2) and one under Section 29A(6).

In the present case, the period for completion of the proceedings as provided under Section 29(1)(a) had expired and yet the arbitral proceedings continued. The Petitioner, alleging that the Sole Arbitrator was biased, filed a petition seeking substitution of the Arbitrator under Section 29A(6) and extending the period under Section 29A(4).

The Court observed that there is a specific provision in the A&C Act for challenging an Arbitrator on the ground of bias, i.e., Section 12, and that Sections 13, 14 and 15 provide for various situations enabling substitution of Arbitrator.

The Court held that when specific provisions are incorporated in the Arbitration Act for challenge against an Arbitrator and for substitution of an Arbitrator, allegation of bias cannot be raised as a ground to seek substitution of Arbitrator under Section 29A.

This fortifies the view that the request for substitution of an Arbitrator alleging bias will not come within the scope of substitution under Section 29A(6) of the Act.

The High Court had held that the only ground for removal of the Arbitrator under Section 29A is the failure of the Arbitrator to proceed expeditiously in the adjudication process. The Court also held that in the absence of grant of extension by the Court the mandate of the Arbitrator had terminated.

[1] Arbitration Petition no. 1 of 2021, Kerala High Court