The Delhi High Court has dismissed Lalit Modi’s challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an arbitral award arising from a dispute with BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., holding that Lalit Modi failed to establish any ground warranting interference with the award. The Court also permitted the connected execution proceedings to proceed for enforcement of the award dated November 21, 2016.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the award was a valid consent award under Sections 30 and 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court noted that both parties had jointly approached the sole arbitrator, Naresh Gupta, on October 5, 2016, and subsequently informed him on November 14, 2016 that they had amicably settled their disputes. Their statements were recorded and signed by both parties and the arbitrator. The Court found that the November 21, 2016 award merely gave binding legal effect to the settlement, including the agreed specific performance of the Agreement to Sell concerning the Vasant Vihar property.
The Court rejected Petitioner’s contention that the subsequent engrossment of the award on non-judicial stamp paper on January 12, 2017 amounted to a fresh or substantively altered award. It held that the award had already attained finality upon its pronouncement on November 21, 2016, and that the subsequent engrossment and communications to the Sub-Registrar were consequential and ministerial acts undertaken pursuant to the parties’ joint request.
Also Read Rajasthan High Court Directs State to Frame Comprehensive Transfer Policy Within Two Months
On the allegation that the sole arbitrator lacked independence and impartiality because of his earlier professional relationship with BDR Builders and its directors, the Court held that mere non-disclosure does not automatically invalidate an arbitral proceeding. The Court found that the material relied upon by Petitioner did not establish any disqualification under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule or circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts under Section 12(3) read with the Fifth Schedule. It also noted that the professional engagements relied upon by Petitioner dated back to 2008–2012, whereas the arbitration commenced in 2016, falling outside the three-year period contemplated by the relevant entries of the Fifth Schedule.
The Court further declined to rely upon a typed copy of an alleged 2018 reply attributed to the arbitrator, observing that its original, authorship and authenticity had not been established. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator’s relationship with the parties attracted any statutory disqualification or objectively gave rise to justifiable doubts regarding his independence or impartiality.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed, disposed of the pending applications and directed that BDR Builders’ execution petition proceed for enforcement of the November 21, 2016 arbitral award. The matter has been listed before the Roster Bench on October 28, 2026 for further proceedings.
