The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for termination of an arbitrator's mandate must satisfy the circumstances laid down under the Act and the precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the petitioner's claims did not fall within the scope and limitations of Section 14(1)(a) and amounted to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Act") has been filed by the petitioner seeking termination of mandate of the Arbitrator appointed for adjudication of disputes between petitioner and the respondent. The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner:

"(a) Terminate the mandate/appointment of the present Arbitrator Mr Vijay Shali, Senior Advocate/Retired Judge A-8 Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash, New Delhi.

(b) Declare the present Arbitrator Mr Vijay Shali, ineligible to act as an Arbitrator in the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

(c) Set aside the order dated 09.11.2022passed by the Learned Arbitrator.

(d) Substitute the appointment of the Learned Arbitrator Mr Vijay Shali with anyone else on the panel of DIAC/Nani Palkhiwala Arbitration Centre.

(e) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a License Agreement dated 30th December 2015, wherein the petitioner was the indemnifier. The respondent had acknowledged the amount of Rs.1.95 lakhs paid at the time of signing the Letter of Intent. The respondent repaid the amount of Rs.1.95 lakhs collected as earnest money while signing the Letter of Intent as full and final settlement of the exit convenience, when the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to continue with the License Agreement.

3. Due to the aforesaid conflicts and other disputes between the parties pertaining to the License Agreement, the respondent had unilaterally appointed an arbitrator, who subsequently, recused himself from adjudicating the issues between the parties on 7th January 2018, since objections were raised by the petitioner to the constitution of the said Tribunal.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court seeking adjudication of the disputes between the parties which had arisen out of their contractual relationship by way of filing an Arbitration Petition bearing No. 447/2021 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, after having issued a notice on 26th October, 2020 invoking the arbitration clause.

5. In the said matter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court appointed the erstwhile Arbitrator vide Order dated 4th March 2022 and arbitration proceedings were initiated between the parties.

6. The petitioner is now before this Court seeking termination of the mandate of the erstwhile Arbitrator.

SUBMISSIONS

7. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that after the erstwhile Arbitrator was appointed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the learned Arbitrator conducted a preliminary conference on 7th May 2022, which was intimated to the respondent by way of an email. The respondent sent an email dated 30th May 2022 to the learned Arbitrator requesting that the hearing may be conducted after 18th June 2022. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator directed the petitioner to file a Statement of Claim before 5th July 2022 and also stated that the right to file claim after the said date shall stand forfeited. The petitioner accordingly filed his Statement of Claim on 28th June 2022 along with an application under Section 17(1)(d) of the Act.

8. It is submitted that on 5th July 2022, the learned Arbitrator directed the respondent to file the Statement of Defense within four weeks and then granted further three weeks' time on 9th August 2022. While granting the extension of time for filing the Statement of Defense, the learned Arbitrator did not raise any objection and did not provide for penalty in case of failure to file the same. It is submitted that at the first instance, the respondent did not file the Statement of Defense within the stipulated time and further the respondent also did not file any application to show or explain the reasons for delay in filing the Statement of Defense. It is submitted that contrary to the conduct of the learned Arbitrator towards the respond