As per the case facts, Chennai Metro Rail Limited awarded a contract to Afcons. Disputes arose, and Afcons sought arbitration. It was agreed that certain dispute heads and a counter-claim ... would be referred to a three-member tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Chennai Metro filed an application seeking the termination of the arbitrator's mandate due to alleged bias or incapacity. The High Court dismissed this application, leading Chennai Metro to appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether an application to terminate an arbitrator's mandate, based on alleged bias or incapacity not specified in the statutory schedule, can be entertained mid-stream, potentially circumventing the legislative intent of the Arbitration Act. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Chennai Metro's application could not succeed. The Court emphasized that allowing exceptions beyond the statutory provisions for challenging arbitrators could lead to an explosion in court cases and uncertainty in the arbitration process. It affirmed that the de jure condition does not unlock doors for challenges not specifically provided by the Act during the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrators were directed to resume proceedings and decide the case according to law.