Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Verma (Retd.) has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Rajasthan High Court order that reduced the fees already paid to an arbitral tribunal headed by him and held the tribunal responsible for delays, repeated adjournments and lack of procedural discipline.

Justice Verma heads a three-member arbitral tribunal along with former High Court judges Justice Dinesh Chandra Somani (Retd.) and Justice N. Kumar (Retd.). The tribunal has been conducting arbitration proceedings since 2019 in a dispute between HCL Infosystems and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JVVNL) concerning a technology contract.

The appeal was listed before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant. The Supreme Court did not issue notice on Justice Verma's plea on Friday and directed that it be heard on Monday along with the appeals filed by HCL Infosystems and JVVNL challenging different aspects of the High Court's order.

Rajasthan HC Had Criticised Arbitral Tribunal

In its May 27 order, the Rajasthan High Court had criticised the functioning of the arbitral tribunal, describing its conduct as “lethargic” and referring to a “casual approach” that allegedly undermined the spirit of arbitration and reflected a lack of procedural discipline.

The High Court prescribed a strict timeline for completion of the arbitration. The tribunal was directed to conclude hearings within 30 days and pronounce the final award within a further 15 days.

The tribunal members were also directed to refund the portion of fees already received after adjustment in accordance with the revised fee determined by the High Court.

The High Court had further directed that the arbitral fee be reduced at the rate of 5% per month of delay until final disposal, with the reduced amount to be refunded to the parties proportionately.

Justice Verma Challenges High Court's Jurisdiction

Justice Verma has contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court exceeded the jurisdiction available to it under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

According to the appeal, while Section 29A permits the High Court to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, it does not empower the Court to dictate the manner, schedule or pace in which arbitration proceedings must be conducted.

The former Supreme Court judge has argued that directions requiring day-to-day hearings and prescribing a specific deadline for delivery of the award amount to judicial control over the arbitral process.

He has also challenged the direction reducing the arbitral fees, arguing that there is no statutory provision authorising a court to reduce fees already paid to arbitrators at a rate of 5% per month of delay.

Tribunal Disputes Responsibility for Delay

Justice Verma has strongly disputed the Rajasthan High Court's finding that the tribunal was responsible for the delay.

The appeal states that the arbitral record runs to more than 50,000 pages, with approximately 22 witnesses cross-examined over 88 hearing sessions.

The tribunal also dealt with more than 13 interim applications involving complex and contentious questions of law and delivered an interim award on September 25, 2025.

The proceedings were also affected by the death of one of the co-arbitrators, which was beyond the tribunal's control. Justice Verma further pointed to a mid-proceeding change of counsel by JVVNL during final arguments, requiring scheduled dates to be rescheduled.

The tribunal has maintained that both parties repeatedly sought adjournments on various grounds, which were accommodated after considering the circumstances cited.

Tribunal Says Record Shows It Was Not Responsible for Delay

According to the appeal, the record demonstrates that the tribunal consistently reserved four to five hearing days every month for the matter.

Justice Verma and the other tribunal members have therefore contended that the tribunal was not responsible for the delay and that any delay was attributable to the parties and circumstances arising during the proceedings.

They have described the adverse observations made by the High Court against the tribunal as unwarranted and unsupported by the record, arguing that the findings lack both factual and legal foundation.

Meanwhile, both HCL Infosystems and JVVNL have also challenged the Rajasthan High Court's directions. HCL has questioned the timeline imposed for completion of the arbitration and delivery of the award, while JVVNL has argued that if the High Court found the tribunal responsible for the delay, it should have reconstituted the tribunal.

A partial vacation bench of the Supreme Court had, in the last week of June, stayed the operation of two directions of the High Court concerning the requirement to pronounce the award within 15 days and refund the arbitral fee.

The Supreme Court will now consider the challenges concerning the High Court's intervention in the long-pending arbitration proceedings.