Substitution of Sole Arbitator Warranted Once Mandate Ends: SC
The Supreme Court of India has recently made a significant ruling regarding the substitution of a sole arbitrator in arbitration proceedings. The Court has held that the substitution of a sole arbitrator is warranted when their mandate ceases to exist. This decision has important implications for the arbitration process and the rights of parties involved in disputes.
The Court’s ruling came in the case of Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. MS Bharat Textiles & Ors., where the issue of substitution of a sole arbitrator was raised. The Court explained that when the mandate of a sole arbitrator expires, either due to the expiry of the initial period or an extended period, the arbitrator cannot proceed with the arbitration proceedings. The mandate of the arbitrator terminates, subject to a court order passed in a proceeding under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs the arbitration process in India. The Act provides for the appointment of arbitrators, the conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the powers of arbitrators. Section 29A of the Act deals with the time limit for making an arbitral award. According to this section, the arbitral award shall be made within a period of 12 months from the date the arbitrator enters upon the reference. However, this period can be extended by the parties or by the court.
The Court’s decision in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. MS Bharat Textiles & Ors. clarifies the position regarding the substitution of a sole arbitrator when their mandate ceases to exist. The Court held that when the mandate of a sole arbitrator expires, the arbitration proceedings come to an end, and the parties are left with no option but to seek the substitution of the arbitrator. The Court explained that the expiry of the mandate of the arbitrator is not a mere technicality, but a significant event that affects the very foundation of the arbitration proceedings.
The Court’s ruling has important implications for the arbitration process. When the mandate of a sole arbitrator ceases to exist, the parties may seek the substitution of the arbitrator to ensure that the arbitration proceedings continue uninterrupted. The substitution of the arbitrator can be done by the parties themselves or by the court, depending on the circumstances of the case. The Court’s decision provides clarity on the procedure to be followed when the mandate of a sole arbitrator expires and highlights the importance of ensuring that the arbitration proceedings continue without interruption.
The Court’s decision is also significant because it emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the arbitration proceedings are conducted in a fair and efficient manner. The Court’s ruling makes it clear that the expiry of the mandate of a sole arbitrator is not a mere technicality, but a significant event that requires prompt attention from the parties and the court. The Court’s decision highlights the need for parties to be aware of the time limits for arbitration proceedings and to take timely action to ensure that the proceedings continue without interruption.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. MS Bharat Textiles & Ors. is a significant ruling that provides clarity on the substitution of a sole arbitrator when their mandate ceases to exist. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the arbitration proceedings continue uninterrupted and highlights the need for parties to be aware of the time limits for arbitration proceedings. The Court’s ruling has important implications for the arbitration process and the rights of parties involved in disputes.
About the Author
