In Cochin Shipyard, Misra and Pant JJ. specifically declined to enter upon a discussion pertaining to any moral misconduct of an Arbitrator or its relevance under The Arbitration Act, 1940.
Recently, in Harish Chandra & Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No.8829 of 2016] the SC has held, “One cannot dispute the legal proposition that an Award can be set aside only on the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 30 of the 1940 Act and on no other grounds. Indeed, this is clear from the opening words of Section 30… grounds such as inadequacy of reasons in support of an Award, error committed by the Arbitrator on facts, alternate or/and more plausible view than what is taken by the Arbitrator, improper appreciation of evidence done by the Arbitrator in recording any finding etc. are not the grounds on which any Award much less a reasoned Award can be set aside. In other words, none of these grounds can be made the foundation for setting aside the Award because they do not fall within the four corners of any of the three sub-clauses of Section 30.”
This is the second time, in ten months, when questions of moral misconduct of an Arbitrator have been comfortably avoided.