Substitution of sole arbitrator 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. In a landmark judgment, the Court has held that the substitution of a sole arbitrator is warranted when their mandate ceases to exist. This ruling has far-reaching implications for arbitration proceedings in India and provides clarity on the circumstances under which a sole arbitrator can be substituted.
The Court explained that on the expiry of the initial or extended period, the arbitrator cannot proceed, and their mandate terminates, subject to a court order passed in a proceeding under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This means that once the sole arbitrator’s mandate comes to an end, they can no longer continue with the arbitration proceedings, and a new arbitrator must be appointed to take their place.
The judgment is a significant development in the field of arbitration law in India. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs arbitration proceedings in India, and the Act provides for the appointment of arbitrators, their powers, and their duties. The Act also provides for the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, but it does not explicitly provide for the substitution of a sole arbitrator.
The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on this issue and establishes that the substitution of a sole arbitrator is warranted when their mandate ceases to exist. This means that parties to an arbitration agreement can seek the substitution of a sole arbitrator if their mandate has come to an end, and a new arbitrator can be appointed to continue with the proceedings.
The Court’s ruling is based on the principle that an arbitrator’s mandate is limited to a specific period, and once that period expires, the arbitrator can no longer continue with the proceedings. The Court noted that the arbitrator’s mandate is not perpetual and that it is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The judgment is also significant because it highlights the importance of ensuring that arbitration proceedings are conducted in a fair and efficient manner. The substitution of a sole arbitrator can be a complex process, and the Court’s ruling provides guidance on how this process should be carried out.
In addition, the judgment emphasizes the need for parties to an arbitration agreement to carefully consider the terms of their agreement, including the provisions relating to the appointment and termination of arbitrators. The Court’s ruling makes it clear that parties must be aware of the limitations of an arbitrator’s mandate and must take steps to ensure that the arbitration proceedings are conducted in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a welcome development in the field of arbitration law in India. It provides clarity and certainty on the issue of substitution of a sole arbitrator and ensures that arbitration proceedings are conducted in a fair and efficient manner.
The case, Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. MS Bharat Textiles & Ors., was decided by the Supreme Court on [date] and can be accessed on the Supreme Court’s website. The judgment is a significant contribution to the development of arbitration law in India and will have far-reaching implications for parties to arbitration agreements.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling that the substitution of a sole arbitrator is warranted once their mandate ends is a significant development in the field of arbitration law in India. The ruling provides clarity and certainty on the issue and ensures that arbitration proceedings are conducted in a fair and efficient manner. Parties to arbitration agreements must be aware of the limitations of an arbitrator’s mandate and must take steps to ensure that the arbitration proceedings are conducted in accordance with the law.
About the Author
