Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Samarth Sagar, Adv. Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Sanchit Garga, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the detailed document provided, here are the key legal points:

1. The power of the arbitral tribunal to terminate proceedings is primarily derived from Section 32(2) of the Act, 1996, which explicitly authorizes the tribunal to issue an order for termination under specific circumstances (!) (!) .

2. Termination of arbitral proceedings can occur either through the final arbitral award or via an order issued by the arbitral tribunal under Section 32(2). The circumstances for such an order include withdrawal of claims, agreement between parties, or when continuation becomes unnecessary or impossible (!) (!) .

3. The phrase "mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate" is specifically associated with the conclusion of proceedings under Section 32(3), indicating the end of the tribunal's authority and jurisdiction over the dispute (!) (!) .

4. The provisions under Sections 25, 30, and 38 of the Act, 1996, describe various circumstances under which proceedings may be terminated, but these do not independently confer the power to terminate proceedings. Instead, they set the conditions that may lead to a termination order under Section 32(2) (!) (!) .

5. The order for termination of proceedings, especially when based on defaults such as non-payment of fees or failure to participate, is considered an order under Section 32(2). Such an order effectively ends the arbitration process and the tribunal's authority, unless the proceedings are revived or the order is challenged (!) (!) (!) .

6. Termination of proceedings does not necessarily mean the termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate unless it is explicitly ordered under Section 32(2). The distinction is crucial because the tribunal's mandate can be revived if proceedings are reopened, but once the proceedings are conclusively terminated under Section 32(2), the tribunal's authority ceases (!) (!) (!) .

7. The appropriate remedy against an order terminating proceedings is typically to seek recall or review of that order within the arbitral process, rather than challenging the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 14, unless the tribunal acts beyond its jurisdiction or without authority (!) (!) (!) .

8. The legal effect of an order terminating proceedings for reasons such as non-payment of fees is consistent with the finality of the arbitration process, and such orders are not considered awards. They are procedural in nature and can be challenged only through specific statutory remedies, such as applications for recall or setting aside under Sections 34 or 37, or through proceedings under Section 14(2) if the tribunal's authority is questioned (!) (!) (!) .

9. The law recognizes that proceedings can be terminated for various reasons, including default, settlement, or impossibility, and each has specific procedural implications. However, once properly terminated under Section 32(2), the arbitration process is considered concluded, with the tribunal's jurisdiction extinguished (!) (!) .

10. Challenges to procedural orders, including those for termination, are generally not permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution unless the tribunal acts without jurisdiction or beyond its authority, such as acting after its mandate has been lawfully terminated (!) (!) (!) .

11. There is a recognized distinction between the termination of proceedings and the termination of the tribunal's mandate. The former is about ending the arbitration process, while the latter pertains to the arbitrator's authority, which can be revived if proceedings are reopened (!) (!) (!) .

12. The legislative framework and judicial interpretations emphasize that the power to terminate proceedings is circumscribed and must be exercised within the specific provisions of the Act, primarily Section 32(2), and cannot be inferred from other provisions in isolation (!) (!) .

13. The law also acknowledges that the remedies for wrongful termination are limited and generally involve challenging the order through statutory procedures rather than through broad judicial review, except where the tribunal acts outside its jurisdiction or in violation of fundamental principles (!) (!) .

14. The principles underlying the law on arbitration include the importance of party autonomy, procedural self-responsibility, and the finality of arbitration awards, which collectively restrict unwarranted judicial interference in procedural orders, including termination orders (!) (!) .

15. The law also recognizes that a party cannot reinitiate arbitration on the same dispute after its proceedings are lawfully terminated, to prevent abuse and forum shopping, unless explicitly permitted by law or specific provisions (!) (!) .

These points collectively outline the legal framework governing the power, scope, and remedies related to the termination of arbitral proceedings under the Act, 1996, and related procedural principles.