The court emphasized the neutrality and objectivity of the arbitral tribunal, as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and various judgments, in determining the termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate and the procedure for appointing a substitute tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--By way of this petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], the petitioner seeks termination of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal, which is adjudicating disputes between the parties under a Contract Agreement dated 16.11.2010 for "Misc. works such as construction of Duty Huts at L-Xings, water supply arrangements, provision of station name boards, hand pumps, circulating area, lifting barriers, approach roads and other allied works between RE-ROK in c/w Rewari-Rohtak New Line".

2. The Contract Agreement contains an arbitration clause (Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract), which contemplates resolution of disputes by arbitration. It is provided that in claims exceeding Rs.10,00,000/- ^{1[I am informed that this amount has since been raised to Rs.1 Crore. However, the present case undisputedly concerns a claim in excess of Rs.1 Crore.]}, the arbitral tribunal would consist of a sole arbitrator and in other cases, it would consist of three arbitrators. The clause contemplates nomination of one of the members of the tribunal by the contractor from a panel of Gazetted Railway Officers, forwarded to it by the respondent. The other two members of the tribunal are to be nominated by the respondent from the aforesaid panel or otherwise.

3. Upon disputes arising between the parties, the petitioner first approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator in ARB.P. 168/2015 under Section 11 of the Act. This Court allowed the petition by an order dated 15.05.2015. However, the aforesaid order was set aside by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6400/2016, holding as follows:

"16. In the result, the impugned judgments dated 15.05.2015 and 02.02.2015 of the High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.168 of 2015 and Arbitration Petition No.531 of 2014 are set aside and these appeals are allowed. The appellant is directed to appoint the arbitrator in terms of Clause 64(3) of the agreement within a period of one month from today under intimation to the respondent(s)-contractors. As soon as the communication of the appointment of arbitrator is made to the respondent(s), the statement of claim be filed by the respondent(s) within six weeks thereafter and the reply of the appellant to be filed within four weeks thereafter. The arbitrator shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and decide the claim after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to both parties expeditiously preferably within a period of four months."

4. The three-member arbitral tribunal was, thus, constituted by a communication dated 24.06.2020 and then on 15.02.2021, in view of one of the nominated members recusing himself.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the arbitral tribunal has held only one hearing on 05.10.2021 and no further hearings have taken place. According to the petitioner, several requests have been made for the hearing to be resumed, but the arbitral tribunal has not done so. It is in these circumstances that the present petition was filed.

6. Notice was issued on 17.11.2022 and the respondent was granted time to file an affidavit within two weeks. The respondent has not filed any affidavit in response.

7. Mr. S.W. Haider, learned counsel for the petitioner, points out that, out of the three-member arbitral tribunal, two members-Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal have since recused from the proceedings.

8. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, learned counsel for the respondent, does not contest the position regarding recusal of two members of the arbitral tribunal and the delay in conduct of the proceedings.

9. In view of the fact that no proceedings in the arbitration have been held since 05.10.2021 and two members of the arbitral tribunal have also recused themselves, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is terminated.

10. As far as appointment of a substitute tribunal is concerned, Mr. Amritanshu submits