Bombay High Court: In an arbitration petition seeking substitution of an arbitrator appointed through an Online Dispute Resolution (‘ODR’) platform, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., upheld the validity of the arbitration clause, which expressly provided for resolution through a designated ODR agency. The Court found that the appointment of the arbitrator was in line with the contractual terms and held that the challenge based on alleged lack of consensus was misconceived. At the same time, to minimise avoidable arbitration costs, the Court directed the parties to explore mediation before the Court’s Mediation Centre.
Background:
The contractual relationship between the parties was governed by terms and conditions, accessible at all times through a link, which contained an arbitration agreement providing for conciliation and arbitration by a pre-agreed ODR agency. The ODR platform first facilitated conciliation and, upon its failure, commenced arbitration.
However, the petitioner did not dispute having received the communications from the ODR agency. The petition was founded solely on the contention that there was no consensus in the appointment of the arbitrator, and substitution was therefore sought. While the petitioner maintained that the absence of consensus rendered the appointment invalid, the respondent relied on the express contractual stipulation mandating arbitration through the ODR portal.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the record clearly showed the contract terms included conciliation and arbitration by a named and pre-agreed ODR agency. It was noted that the petitioner had access to these terms at all times and had received communications from the ODR agency.
The Court observed that one cannot possibly conclude there was no consensus simply because the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties entailed conciliation and arbitration by a named and pre-agreed ODR Agency portal.
The Court highlighted that the petition was misconceived in seeking substitution on such grounds. However, the Court noted the willingness of the parties to proceed to mediation before the Court’s Mediation Centre and accordingly directed them to appear before the centre. The Court finally disposed of the petition in these terms, observing that appropriate arrangements may be made by the arbitral tribunal pending mediation.
[Amit Chaurasia v. ICICI Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5259, decided on 10-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sanaya Dadachanji, a/w Resham Vasant Savla, i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co.