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 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 if the arbitrator’s mandate has expired, they can no longer continue with the arbitration proceedings, and a new arbitrator must be appointed to take their place.
The Supreme Court’s decision 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 exercise their powers. The Court noted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for the extension of the arbitrator’s mandate in certain circumstances, but if the mandate is not extended, it comes to an end.
The implications of this decision are significant. It means that parties to an arbitration agreement must be aware of the arbitrator’s mandate and ensure that it is extended or a new arbitrator is appointed before the mandate expires. If the mandate expires, the arbitration proceedings will come to a halt, and a new arbitrator will need to be appointed to continue the proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s decision also highlights the importance of careful planning and management of arbitration proceedings. Parties must ensure that they have a clear understanding of the arbitrator’s mandate and the circumstances under which it can be extended or terminated. This will help to avoid delays and disruptions to the arbitration proceedings and ensure that the dispute is resolved efficiently and effectively.
In addition, the decision emphasizes the need for parties to be proactive in managing the arbitration process. If the arbitrator’s mandate is about to expire, parties should take steps to extend the mandate or appoint a new arbitrator to avoid any disruption to the proceedings. This requires careful planning and coordination between the parties and the arbitrator.
The Supreme Court’s decision is also consistent with the principles of fairness and justice. It ensures that arbitration proceedings are conducted in a fair and transparent manner and that the rights of all parties are protected. By providing clarity on the circumstances under which a sole arbitrator can be substituted, the Court has helped to promote confidence in the arbitration process and ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely and efficient manner.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision on the substitution of a sole arbitrator is an important development in the field of arbitration in India. It provides clarity on the circumstances under which a sole arbitrator can be substituted and highlights the importance of careful planning and management of arbitration proceedings. Parties must be aware of the arbitrator’s mandate and take steps to extend or terminate it as necessary to avoid delays and disruptions to the arbitration proceedings.
The decision is a significant contribution to the development of arbitration law in India and will have important implications for parties involved in arbitration proceedings. It is essential for parties to understand the implications of this decision and to take steps to ensure that their arbitration agreements are carefully drafted and managed to avoid any disputes or delays.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. MS Bharat Textiles & Ors. (2025 INSC 1409) has provided much-needed clarity on the substitution of a sole arbitrator and will help to promote confidence in the arbitration process. The decision is a significant milestone in the development of arbitration law in India and will have far-reaching implications for parties involved in arbitration proceedings.
About the Author
