Arbitration is a method wherein a third party is appointed for adjudication of the matter between the concerned parties. Thus, preserving the sanctity of the judicial process becomes crucial. Arbitration cannot gain confidence in the minds of the parties to the dispute without having system to ensure impartiality and independence of arbitrators. In India, even today adhoc arbitration is preferred by the parties. Due to this, the responsibility of appointing of arbitrators is either on the shoulders of High Courts or one of the parties. Over the years, various situations have arisen, putting courts in dilemma to decide between upholding party autonomy or the principles of natural justice. To cajole the confidence of the parties a common man, the arbitration system provided in the Procedural law of a country should provide sufficient checks and balances in order to ensure that arbitration is an impartial dispute resolution system. However, as party autonomy is the cornerstone of arbitration, courts have been hesitant in interfering with party autonomy. A similar conundrum was faced by the Indian Judiciary in the leading case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. The present paper aims to analyse this case and to highlight the ratio decidendi of the case.