Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently made a significant ruling that allows a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to be treated as a petition under Section 15(2) for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator if the mandate of the arbitrator is prima facie terminated under Section 15 of the same Act.

In the case in question, an arbitrator appointed by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in 2008 failed to conclude the arbitration proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, seeking directions for the arbitrator to expedite the proceedings or, alternatively, the appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court called upon the arbitrator to clarify whether the proceedings could be concluded expeditiously. When the arbitrator expressed his inability to do so, the learned Single Judge held that, by virtue of this statement, the arbitrator's mandate had terminated under Section 15(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

As a result, the petition initially filed under Section 11(6) was treated as a petition under Section 15(2) of the Act. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court appointed a substitute arbitrator through the order of the learned Single Judge.

Advocate Shreesh Chadha along with Advocates Aman S Bakhshi and Divjot S. Bhatia as Advocates KaaryaLaw represented the petitioner in this case.

This ruling by the Delhi High Court clarifies the process for seeking the appointment of a substitute arbitrator when the mandate of the original arbitrator has prima facie terminated under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It ensures that parties can pursue effective arbitration proceedings even when faced with delays or challenges in the arbitration process.

Case Title: M/S MADHU KISHAN GUPTA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI