As per case facts, the petitioner, an Austrian company, had a contract with DMRC for rail supply, which led to disputes over withheld payments, encashed bank guarantees, and liquidated damages. ... DMRC also suspended business dealings, prompting the petitioner to invoke arbitration. However, the petitioner objected to DMRC's proposed panel of arbitrators, arguing that it consisted of serving or retired government engineers who lacked independence as per the amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The question arose whether DMRC's panel of arbitrators, composed of retired government/PSU engineers, violated the neutrality requirements of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended in 2015. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that being a retired government or PSU officer does not automatically render a person ineligible under the Seventh Schedule if they have no direct connection to DMRC. The Court found no justifiable apprehension of bias but advised DMRC to create a more broad-based panel for future arbitration to ensure confidence.