Can Arbitrator Publish Award After President Signs Warrant Appointing Him High Court Judge? Supreme Court To Examine

The Supreme Court has recently agreed to examine whether an arbitrator could publish an arbitral award after the President had signed the warrant appointing him as an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court, with the appointment notification published a day before the award.

The challenge is against the Calcutta High Court's August 12, 2026 , order, which rejected Acumen Marketing's objection to the arbitrator's competence, holding that the arbitral award was passed at 2 PM on August 8, 2026, before Partha Pratim Roy assumed office as an Additional Judge of the High Court upon taking oath at 4:15 PM.

A division bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu while staying the arbitral award, issued notice and posted the matter on November 28 for further consideration.

The Court framed the following substantial question of law for consideration, “First, whether the Arbitrator could have published his award on 8th August, 2026 after the President had signed the warrant of appointment of such arbitrator as an Additional Judge of the High Court at Calcutta and a notification to that effect was duly published on 7th August, 2026 as well as when his mandate had ceased on 27th July, 2026?”

The Court also questioned whether the Single Judge was justified in extending the arbitrator's mandate to validate an award that was prima facie void ab initio.

The proceedings arose from a dispute between The Hooghly Mills Company Limited and Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited under a Facility Service Agreement dated October 1, 2016. In February 2021, the Calcutta High Court appointed Advocate Partha Pratim Roy as the sole arbitrator.

After the arbitrator's mandate was extended on multiple occasions, the final extension expired on July 27, 2026. Roy published the award on August 8, 2026, at 2 PM, before taking oath as an Additional Judge at 4:15 PM that day.

Hooghly Mills approached the High Court under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of the mandate. The Single Judge retrospectively extended it until August 8, 2026, holding that the award was passed before Roy assumed judicial office.

The bench noted that the award was rendered at 2:00 p.m. on August 8, 2026, while Roy assumed judicial office only upon taking the oath at 4:15 p.m. that day.

Acumen challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. The bench issued notice, returnable on November 28, 2026 and stayed the operation of the arbitral award until the next hearing.

For the Petitioner: Advocates Shuvasish Sen Gupta, Sanchit Guru, Jamnesh Kumar, Abhishek Amritanshu- 3537, AOR