The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not maintainable when the sole Arbitrator is appointed by mutual consent and in the absence of a written agreement containing the arbitration clause. Additionally, disputes regarding the termination of the sole Arbitrator's mandate under section 14(1)(a) should be raised before the concerned court, as defined under section 2(e) of the Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

The present appeals arise out of impugned common judgment and order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Arbitration Case (AC) No. 29/2015 and in Writ Petition Nos. 11258/2010 and 11259/2010 and the order dated 17.11.2017 passed in Review Petition No. 655/2017, by which, the High Court in exercise of powers under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) has terminated the mandate of sole Arbitrator appointed by the parties themselves and has substituted the sole Arbitrator and has appointed a fresh Arbitrator on the ground that the mandate of the sole Arbitrator stood terminated in view of section 14(1) (a) of the Act, 1996. This is on the basis that there was undue and unreasonable delay in proceeding with the arbitration proceeding by the Sole Arbitrator. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) preferred by the appellant herein.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under: -

2.1 That a dispute between the parties which as such is a family dispute for partition of the properties arose. It was referred to the sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator was appointed as a sole Arbitrator by the parties themselves on 04.08.2008. The learned Arbitrator directed the parties to appear on 14.03.2009 for deciding the pending applications. On the request of the parties, the Arbitrator adjourned the hearing on 30.03.2009. No proceedings were undertaken on 30.03.2009 due to the fact that the sole Arbitrator was not available in town. Respondent No. 1 and 3 herein - parties to the arbitration proceedings revoked the mandate of the sole Arbitrator vide letters dated 11.07.2009. The letters were replied to by the sole Arbitrator. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 and 3 herein, parties to the arbitration proceedings filed applications under section 14(1)(a) of the Act, 1996 before the concerned Court (District Court) to terminate the mandate of the sole Arbitrator on the ground of delay in concluding the arbitration proceedings. The appellant herein filed an application under order VII Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the said applications under section 14 of the Act, 1996, submitting that there was no delay at all on the part of the sole Arbitrator and therefore, there was no question of terminating the mandate of sole Arbitrator under section 14(1)(a) of the Act, 1996. Vide order dated 15.07.2010, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under order VII Rule 11 of CPC preferred by the appellant herein.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, rejecting the application under order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the appellant herein preferred present writ petition Nos. 11259/2010 and 11258/2010 before the High Court and pending the applications under section 14(1) (a) of the Act, 1996 one of the parties - Dinesh Kumar Agarwal preferred an arbitration case before the High Court under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 and requested to terminate the mandate of the sole Arbitrator and to appoint a fresh Arbitrator. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed Arbitration Case No. 29/2015 and has observed and held that there was undue and unreasonable delay on the part of the sole Arbitrator in concluding the arbitrating proceedings and his mandate stood terminated under section 14(1)(a) of the Act, 1996. Consequently, the High Court has appointed a fresh Arbitrator. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellant herein, in which the appellant challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judg