Is an arbitrator biased if fees are increased unilaterally against wishes of one party? Supreme Court to decide

The Supreme Court recently decided to look into the issue of whether an arbitrator can be considered as being biased towards one party if the other party objects to their unilaterally increasing their fees. [Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building v. M/S Transtonnelstroy Afcons]. .A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Aravind Kumar noted that a special bench for hearing arbitration matters was being constituted."Taking into consideration that the decision on the issue will have wider ramifications, the matter requires to be heard expeditiously...since a special Bench for taking up arbitration matters is being constituted, we direct the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for obtaining orders as to whether this matter can also be referred to the special Bench.".The appellant in the present case challenged a Madras High Court judgment dated January 24 on the ground that the High Court had failed to terminate the mandate of an arbitral tribunal owing to apprehensions of bias after the arbitrator had unilaterally increased their fees. The appellant had objected to the increase in fees of the arbitrator.During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, appearing for the appellant, argued that if an arbitrator unilaterally increases their fees and the same is opposed by one of the parties, then there is likelihood of bias in the mind of the arbitrator against such a party. He relied on the apex court's judgments in Union of India v Singh Builders Syndicate and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Afcons Gunanusa JV to buttress his case..On the other hand, Senior Advocate CA Sundaram, appearing for the respondent, relied on Supreme Court judgment in HRD Corporation v. Gail and argued that if a case of the parties is based on bias, then it will be covered under Section 13 (challenge procedure) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He added that thee only stage at which such a challenge could be raised is after the award is passed by the tribunal.He further submitted that the case of bias would not automatically terminate the mandate of an arbitrator in terms of Section 14 (failure or impossibility to act) of the Act..After hearing arguments, the Court noted that two of the judgments cited by the counsel were passed by two-judge benches of the Supreme Court, while the other was passed by a three-judge bench. In this light, it opined that the issue requires to be considered and decided.Given the fact that it was largely taking up death references on non-miscellaneous days, the Bench felt that it could not decide the matter speedily. It thus directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India, who will determine whether it will be heard by the special bench. .Along with the ASG, Senior Advocate Ritin Rai and a team of lawyers from Dua Associates headed by Advocate Sairam Arjun Suresh, along with Advocates Chitranshul A Sinha, Raghavendra Ross Divakar and Jaskaran Singh Bhatia appeared for the appellant.The respondent represented by Sundaram and Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan, along with Advocates Manu Seshadri, Aveak Ganguly, Abhijit Lal, Pallavi Anand and Mithu Jain..[Read Order]