An award that is “prima facie void ab initio” is the Bench’s own phrase, used in framing a question at the notice stage, for an arbitral award published a day after the President signed the arbitrator’s warrant of appointment as an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court; the award is stayed, and the Supreme Court will decide whether such an arbitral award can stand at all.
New Delhi: A sole arbitrator, Partha Pratim Roy, published his award on August 8, 2026, a day after the President’s warrant appointing him as an Additional Judge of the High Court was issued and notified, and nearly two weeks after his mandate had expired on July 27; the Supreme Court has now issued notice on a plea challenging the Calcutta High Court order that extended that mandate [Petitioner v. Respondent (case title to be verified)].
The order was passed by a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, which stayed the operation of the arbitral award till the next date of hearing on November 28, 2026.
Dates that frame the dispute
The arbitrator’s mandate expired on July 27, 2026. After he was recommended for appointment as an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court, the President’s warrant was issued and notified on August 7. The award was published on August 8. The Single Judge of the High Court later extended the arbitral tribunal’s mandate, which had the effect of saving the award. That order is now under challenge before the Supreme Court.
Two questions the Bench has put
The first issue, as framed by the Bench, goes to the award itself:
“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 second concerns the High Court’s order extending the mandate, an extension granted after the notification of the President’s warrant had been published. The Bench put it this way:
“Whether the Single Judge was justified in extending the mandate of the Arbitrator and thereby grant legitimacy to an award which prima facie is void ab initio.”
A preliminary view only
The words “prima facie” matter here. They record a preliminary view at the notice stage, and the Court has not finally decided the validity of the award or of the extension of mandate. The respondents are yet to reply.
Why the order matters
The case raises a question of law that has rarely been tested: whether a person who has been appointed to constitutional office as a High Court judge can still act as a private arbitrator, even for a single day, and whether a court can cure a lapsed mandate after the event. The answer will affect the validity of awards rendered by advocates and retired officers elevated to the Bench while arbitrations are pending, and the limits of the court’s power to extend an arbitrator’s mandate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Until the Court decides, the award cannot be enforced.
Case Title: Petitioner v. Respondent (case title to be verified)
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 2026 (date to be verified)
Impugned Order: Calcutta High Court (Single Judge) order extending arbitral mandate
Next Date: November 28, 2026