PRO TIP when you face a Business Conflict

Craft Clear Agreements: When an agreement is reached, ensure it's crystal clear. Clearly articulate the terms, responsibilities, and consequences. Clarity prevents future disputes and lays a solid foundation for cooperation.

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us

Share this page

Jurisdiction of Tribunal: Telangana High Court's Stance on Collusion Allegations and Section 13

Arbitration has long been considered an effective and preferred method for resolving disputes outside the traditional court system. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") governs arbitration proceedings in India and has undergone various judicial interpretations over the years. In a recent landmark case, Sawera Township v. Faisal Bin Tirif, the High Court of Telangana addressed the critical issue of seeking the appointment of a substitute arbitrator based solely on allegations of collusion between the arbitrator and a party. The court clarified that such allegations, even if they exist, cannot be decided under Section 11 of the Act and must be necessarily addressed by the tribunal under Section 13 of the Act. This article delves into the background of the case, the court's ruling, the implications and significance of the judgment, and the inferences drawn from it.
Background of the Case

The case of Sawera Township v. Faisal Bin Tirif stemmed from a construction dispute between Sawera Township, a real estate developer, and Faisal Bin Tirif, an individual who had entered into a construction contract with the developer. The agreement contained an arbitration clause, and when a dispute arose over the execution of the contract, Faisal Bin Tirif initiated arbitration proceedings against Sawera Township.

During the arbitration process, Faisal Bin Tirif raised allegations of collusion between the appointed arbitrator and Sawera Township, claiming that a fair and impartial arbitration could not be conducted with the current arbitrator in place. Consequently, Faisal Bin Tirif sought the appointment of a substitute arbitrator to ensure an unbiased resolution of the dispute. The tribunal, faced with this request, referred the matter to the High Court of Telangana, invoking Section 11 of the Act to decide on the appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

Ruling of the Court

In a well-reasoned judgment, the High Court of Telangana analyzed the crucial issue of seeking the appointment of a substitute arbitrator based solely on allegations of collusion. The court held that a party cannot seek the removal of an arbitrator merely on the ground of allegations. It highlighted that the mere existence of allegations does not necessarily imply the existence of collusion and that such a serious accusation must be backed by sufficient evidence to ensure fairness to both parties involved.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that Section 11 of the Act deals with the appointment of arbitrators and the procedure for such appointments, while Section 13 deals with the grounds for challenging the appointment or jurisdiction of an arbitrator. The court clarified that issues concerning the conduct of an arbitrator or any challenge to their impartiality fall under the ambit of Section 13 and must be determined by the tribunal itself, not by the court under Section 11.

The judgment reinforced the principle of competence-competence, which implies that the arbitral tribunal is best suited to decide its jurisdiction, including challenges to the arbitrator's appointment, as it is the most competent authority to delve into the facts and circumstances surrounding the dispute.

Implications and Significance

The ruling in Sawera Township v. Faisal Bin Tirif carries several implications for the arbitration landscape in India and underscores certain fundamental principles related to arbitration proceedings.

  • Upholding the Principle of Competence-Competence: The High Court's decision reaffirms the competence of an arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction, including issues related to arbitrator appointments. This principle recognizes the authority of the tribunal to decide its competence and prevents parties from resorting to courts prematurely.
  • Discouraging Frivolous Allegations: By disallowing parties from seeking the removal of arbitrators based on mere allegations, the court discourages frivolous attempts to undermine the arbitration process. This ensures that arbitrators can fulfill their duties without undue interference, promoting a fair and efficient dispute resolution mechanism.
  • Efficiency and Speed in Dispute Resolution: The court's ruling reinforces the intention behind the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which seeks to expedite dispute resolution outside the traditional court system. Allowing the tribunal to address issues of collusion or bias ensures that the arbitration process remains efficient and avoids unnecessary delays.
  • Boosting Confidence in Arbitration: The judgment enhances the confidence of parties in arbitration as a reliable and impartial means of resolving disputes. It prevents the erosion of trust in the arbitration system by ensuring that arbitrators are given due respect and their conduct is questioned only when substantial evidence exists.
  • Clarity in the Interpretation of the Act: The court's clear distinction between the scope of Section 11 and Section 13 of the Act provides valuable guidance to practitioners and parties involved in arbitration. This ruling clarifies the proper procedure for challenging arbitrator appointments and aligns with the underlying principles of the Act.

The High Court of Telangana's decision in Sawera Township v. Faisal Bin Tirif brings clarity and certainty to the arbitration process by emphasizing the importance of evidence-backed claims when seeking the appointment of a substitute arbitrator. By preserving the principle of competence-competence and directing parties to the appropriate remedy under Section 13, the court ensures a fair and efficient arbitration mechanism.

This judgment highlights the significance of a transparent and credible arbitration system in India, fostering trust among parties and encouraging more widespread adoption of arbitration as a preferred mode of dispute resolution. As India's business landscape continues to grow, the clarity provided by this ruling will have a far-reaching impact on the arbitration regime, bolstering its reputation as an effective and reliable alternative to traditional litigation.


Sawera Township v. Faisal Bin Tirif