Mandate of earlier Arbitrator terminated for abandonment of arbitration – Section 11 cannot be used to re-start fresh arbitration at the instance of such a party – Bombay HC
On 14.11.2019, the High Court appointed the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties on the performance of Deed of Assignment of Development Rights of 6.10.2010. By the order dated 13.1.2020, the said Arbitrator was substituted.
On 31.3.2010, the Arbitrator passed an order under Section 17 AA. However, for considerable period of time nothing had happened.
By the order dated 18.10.2024, the High Court had refused to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator on the ground that the applicants had abandoned the arbitral proceedings. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court vide order ated 14.2.2025.
Thereafter, the fresh arbitration notice was issued and section 11 petition was filed.
HELD that there is distinction between the concepts of termination of “mandate of arbitrator” and termination of “mandate of arbitral proceedings”. Mere termination of mandate of the arbitrator does not result in automatic termination of the arbitral proceedings. However, in this case, Section 29A Court held that the applicants had abandoned the arbitral proceedings. As a result, if the mandate of earlier Arbitrator was not extended on account of conduct of the applicants and that they had abandoned the arbitral proceedings, appointing another fresh arbitration for fresh proceeding at the behest of the same applicants would be like rewarding them for their faults.
there may be cases where the Court can refuse to extend mandate of Arbitrator for reasons not attributable to the parties and in such circumstances, it is possible that referral Court can exercise powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a substitute arbitrator by concluding that the arbitration proceedings still continues. But that principle cannot be applied in the present case.
Does this mean that the arbitral proceedings still continue and can Court appoint a substitute arbitrator in such circumstances? There appears to be no direct judgment on the issue with elaborate discussion on distinction in the concepts of termination of mandate of arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act and termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32.
Judgment dated 1.4.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Application No.430 of 2025 of Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel and another Vs. Atharva Realtors and others
