Abandonment of Arbitration Bars Substitution of Arbitrator

Bombay HC – Once Arbitral Proceedings are Abandoned and deemed to have been terminated under Section 32[2][c], the Court cannot appoint a substitute Arbitrator under Sections 11 and 14, as substitution cannot revive a dead or terminated or abandoned arbitration.

In 2014, the Arbitrator was appointed in relation to the affairs, business and assets of the partnership firm and to make award in nine months.

On 2.1.2026, an email was sent to the Arbitrator about the demise of father of Pradeep Kanugo, to bring his legal heirs on record and for various other reliefs.

However, the office of the Arbitrator orally informed that due to old age the Arbitrator  is not able to conduct and conclude arbitration.

The applicants filed Section 11 r/w 14 applications for termination of mandate of existing arbitrator and for substitute arbitrator.

The maintainability was challenged on the ground that the parties have abandoned the arbitrator and same cannot be revived.

There is difference between the concepts of termination of mandate of arbitrator and termination of arbitration proceedings

In my view therefore the inescapable conclusion that emerges is that the arbitral proceedings are abandoned by the Applicants and the proceedings are terminated under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act. Since arbitral proceedings are terminated under the provisions of Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act, this Court is unable to substitute the arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 11 or under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act.

Judgment dated 8.5.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Application No.242 of 2026 of Supama Realtors LLP and others   Vs. Mulchand Kaluchand Ranka and others