Archive · 14 Aug 2026
Ex-Supreme Court judge challenges Rajasthan HC order over 'lethargic' tribunal
Sometimes, two big groups cannot agree, so they ask special judges called arbitrators to help decide.
A retired judge named Deepak Verma was helping solve a fight between two companies.
The Rajasthan High Court, another court, said the arbitrators were too slow.
It called them 'lethargic,' which means lazy and sleepy.
The court told them to give back some of their money because of the delay.
Justice Verma thinks this decision was not fair.
He said the case had more than 50,000 pages of papers, which is a lot to read!
Many witnesses had to give their side of the story.
One of the arbitrators even passed away, which slowed things down.
So he asked the biggest court in India, the Supreme Court, to check if the decision was right.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Verma has moved the top court against a Rajasthan High Court order that reduced the fee of an arbitral tribunal he led.
The High Court had described the tribunal's conduct as 'lethargic,' with a 'casual approach,' a 'lack of procedural discipline,' and unwarranted adjournments.
The High Court directed the tribunal to return fees after a 5% per month reduction for delay and set a 30-day deadline to complete hearings and 15 days to pronounce the award.
Justice Verma argues the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, since Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only allows extending a tribunal's mandate, not dictating its pace.
He attributes delay to a 50,000-page record, about 22 witnesses cross-examined over 88 sessions, the death of a co-arbitrator, and repeated adjournments sought by both parties.
- Who
- Former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Verma (Retd), appealing against a Rajasthan High Court order; the Supreme Court bench was led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
- What
- An appeal challenging the Rajasthan High Court's order that criticised an arbitral tribunal led by Justice Verma as 'lethargic,' reduced its fees, and set deadlines to finish the arbitration.
- When
- The appeal was listed for hearing on a Friday and scheduled for the following Monday; the High Court order was passed on 27 May.
- Where
- Supreme Court of India in New Delhi; the challenged order came from the Rajasthan High Court.
- Why
- Justice Verma contends the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by fixing timelines and cutting fees, and that the delay was caused by the case's size and the parties, not the tribunal.
Justice Verma (Tribunal)
Rajasthan High Court
Who caused the delay?
Justice Verma (Tribunal)
The tribunal was not responsible: the record ran over 50,000 pages, about 22 witnesses were cross-examined over 88 sessions, a co-arbitrator died, JVVNL changed lawyers mid-arguments, and both parties sought repeated adjournments.
Rajasthan High Court
The tribunal had a 'lethargic' and 'casual approach,' granted unwarranted adjournments, and showed a 'lack of procedural discipline' that undermined the spirit of arbitration.
Can a court set timelines and cut fees?
Justice Verma (Tribunal)
Under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court may only extend a tribunal's mandate; directing day-to-day hearings, a fixed award deadline, and fee cuts is an impermissible intrusion beyond its jurisdiction.
Rajasthan High Court
The court acted to address the 'deeper' problem in the arbitration ecosystem and restore arbitration as a quick remedy to commercial litigation pending since 2019.
Proper remedy for the delay
Justice Verma (Tribunal)
JVVNL argued that once the High Court faulted the arbitrators for delay, it should have reconstituted the tribunal with new members.
Rajasthan High Court
HCL Infosystems was aggrieved with the timeline set for concluding the arbitration and delivering the award.
- Appellant
- Justice Deepak Verma (Retd), former Supreme Court judge
- Dispute parties
- HCL Infosystems vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (JVVNL)
- Dispute subject
- Technology contract
- High Court order date
- 27 May
- Fee reduction ordered
- 5% per month of delay
- Hearing timeline set
- 30 days to complete hearings; 15 days to pronounce award
- Arbitration record
- Over 50,000 pages; about 22 witnesses over 88 sessions
- Interim award declared
- 25 September 2025