As per case facts, the State of Goa (Appellant) and U. P. State Bridge Corporation Limited (Respondent) had a contract dispute, leading to arbitration. Appellant challenged the Respondent's nominated Arbitrator, ... Shri Shitala Sharan, for alleged bias (past association, non-disclosure). The Arbitral Tribunal rejected this, and an award was passed. Appellant then challenged this award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. After being dismissed as time-barred then revived, the challenge was rejected on merits by the Principal District Judge, leading to this High Court appeal. The question arose whether the Arbitrator's alleged bias and non-disclosure invalidated the Arbitral Award under the applicable law. Finally, the High Court held that the Arbitration Act, 1940, applied, not the 1996 Act, as proceedings commenced earlier. Consequently, the disclosure provisions (Sections 12 and 13) of the 1996 Act were inapplicable. The court noted Appellant's awareness of the Arbitrator's past associations during nomination and concluded that mere past employment with a State-owned Corporation, without further proof of bias and given the unanimous award with neutral co-arbitrators, was insufficient. The appeal was dismissed.