In a case between Tata Motors and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC), the Calcutta High Court dismissed WBIDC’s application to implead the Presiding Arbitrator in proceedings under Sections 34 and 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. WBIDC alleged bias and fraud, claiming the arbitrator attended Tata Motors events during the arbitration. Tata Motors countered that the bias claim was raised late and did not amount to fraud under Section 36(3). The Court held that impleadment of an arbitrator can only occur after a prima facie case of fraud or corruption is established. It clarified that bias alone doesn’t fall under the ambit of fraud or corruption for unconditional stay. The Court distinguished between the broader review under Section 34 and the limited scope of Section 36(2), emphasizing sequential adjudication: first, fraud must be prima facie established, then impleadment can be considered. Thus, the application was deemed premature and misconceived.