Calcutta High Court
AP/11/2026 of BIKASH PRASAD Vs BRIJ BIHARI SHAHA AND ORS. on 28 September 2026
Item No.3 AP HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI AP 11 of
28.09.2026
Court No.07
Item No.3
AP
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
AP 11 of 2026
Sri Bikash Prasad
Vs.
Sri Brij Bihari Shaha and Ors.
Mr. Subham Ghosh
Mr. Mayank Roy
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Debanjan Das
Ms. Sukanya Bhaumik
... For the Opposite Party No.2.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. AP 11 of 2026 has been filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 stating that the arbitrator’s mandate is liable to be terminated by reason of the award itself.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner the award apart from certain portions has been completely prepared with the help of Artificial Intelligence and/or computer programmes based thereon.
3. This Court is of the prima facie view that since the award in question has been passed and communicated to the parties, the misconduct of the arbitrator is required to be agitated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. What the petitioner wishes to argue against the award is that the use of Artificial Intelligence in essence means that the arbitrator failed to exercise independent
2 mind and as allowed a third person, party or source to influence passing of the award in question.
5. This Court is of the clear and unequivocal view that such a grievance can be raised only in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby and under award itself can be interfered with. Such interference would be called if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the arbitrator did not exercise independent mind while passing the award in question and has misconducted himself being influenced by sources other than the records and his own application of mind. Use of Artificial Intelligence may also be contrary to public policy.
6. In the light of the above, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, AP 11 of 2026 is disposed of without any order.
7. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)