The Supreme Court of India has recently raised serious concerns over an arbitral award that mandated the South Eastern Railway to pay Rs 1,301 crore to Kolkata-based firm Rashmi Metaliks Limited, citing a contractual dispute. The bench, comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed dissatisfaction with the arbitral decision, emphasizing that public funds should not be allowed to go to waste in such matters.

The Supreme Court justices, prima facie, found fault with the arbitral award and expressed their discontent. Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked, "Less said the better. As judges, we also know a lot of things." The bench strongly advocated for a fair and unbiased arbitration process, stating that the current situation is contributing to a negative perception of arbitration in the country.

"I am not happy with the arbitral award. Let the case go before a dispassionate arbitrator, and let this be heard again. If Railways lose there… then it is fine. But, the arbitration process cannot be allowed to be handled like this. This is why the arbitration is getting a bad name," CJI asserted.

The case involves a contractual dispute between the South Eastern Railway and Rashmi Metaliks Limited. The top court, dissatisfied with the current proceedings, has decided to review the case and appoint a new arbitrator to ensure a fair and unbiased hearing.

The Calcutta High Court had previously granted an "unconditional stay" on the operation of the arbitration award, citing "glaring irregularities" in the process. The Apex Court, acknowledging the concerns raised by the high court, expressed its willingness to set aside the order and conduct a fresh arbitration. The bench assured that a neutral arbitrator would be appointed to oversee the proceedings.

The Court emphasized that the public's money should not be allowed to go to waste and highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of the arbitration process. The hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, providing an opportunity for both parties to present their arguments before the newly appointed arbitrator.