IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
M/s Rakesh Kumar And Co. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 53 of 2023
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Arbitration - Termination of Arbitrator's Mandate - The court terminated the mandate of the sole arbitrator and appointed a new arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties pertaining to the agreement dated 02.11.2017.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for revocation and termination of the mandate of the appointed arbitrator due to delays in the arbitration proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court terminated the mandate of the sole arbitrator and appointed a new arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. It also extended the time for passing the award by a further period of one year.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in the arbitration proceedings, the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, and the refusal of consent for extension of time by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the delays in the arbitration proceedings and the failure to give a declaration under Section 12 of the 1996 Act warranted the termination of the arbitrator's mandate. It also considered the refusal of consent for extension of time by the parties.
Final Decision: The court terminated the mandate of the sole arbitrator, appointed a new arbitrator, extended the time for passing the award, and left it open for the parties to request the substitute arbitrator to proceed from the stage of completion of pleadings and/or record evidence.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `1996 Act') for revocation and termination of the mandate of Shri R.K. Aggarwal, appointed as arbitrator vide letter dated 02.11.2021.
2. Disputes between the parties pertain to a work contract awarded by the Respondent to the Petitioner with respect to `D/o Main land at Hastsal area. SH: C/o 30 mtr. Road along Najafgarh drain connecting Hastsal DDA flats at PWD road no. 237 upto Najafgarh Road'. Pursuant to the letter of award, an agreement dated 02.11.2017 was executed between the parties governed by General Conditions of Contract and containing an arbitration agreement under clause 25 (ii) of GCC.
3. As disputes relating to the contract were not resolved amicably, Petitioner vide letter dated 26.12.2020 invoked the arbitration clause and requested the Competent Authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator. Sh. R.K. Aggarwal, Retd. Principal CE, Northern Railway was appointed as a sole Arbitrator, who entered upon reference on 13.11.2021 but carried on with the proceedings without a declaration in terms of Section 12(1) of the 1996 Act.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the hearings were concluded by the learned Arbitrator and case was reserved for passing of the award on 08.08.2022, with liberty to the parties to file written submissions within four weeks, however, till date the award has not been passed and the maximum period of one year and six months for making and publishing the award has expired on 12.05.2023. It is also stated that after reserving the case for award, Arbitrator has become incommunicado, save and except, asking the parties to consent to the extension of time by six months through a WhatsApp message on 28.05.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the appointment of the Arbitrator is void ab initio as no declaration was given under Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act. Learned Arbitrator is de jure incapable of acting having been unilaterally appointed by the Engineer Member, DDA and therefore his mandate deserves to be terminated. The Arbitrator has not acted expeditiously which is evident from the fact that no award has been rendered since 08.08.2022 and therefore it is even otherwise not in the interest of the Petitioner to continue with the Arbitrator and give consent for extension of time for making the award. It is also submitted that the Respondent has also refused to give consent for extension of time and thus seen holistically the mandate of the present Arbitrator deserves to be terminated. It is thus prayed that a substitute Arbitrator be appointed by this Court.
6. Ms. Kaul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent fairly and candidly submits that Respondent has no objection to the termination of the mandate of Sh. R.K. Aggarwal as Arbitrator and substitution by another Arbitrator.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. For the reasons stated in the petition, the following directions are issued:
(a) Mandate of the sole Arbitrator Shri R.K. Aggarwal is hereby terminated;
(b) Justice Deepa Sharma, former Judge of this Court (Mob. No. 9910384631) is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties pertaining to and in respect of Agreement dated 02.11.2017;
(c) Learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the 1996 Act, prior to entering upon reference;
(d) Fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be regulated in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act; and
(e) Time for passing of award is extended by a further period of one year from today.
8. Parties submit that the earlier Arbitrator had not recorded evidence and therefore liberty be granted to the parties to request the substitute Arbitrator to permit the parties to lead evidence and
Delays in arbitration proceedings and failure to comply with the requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can warrant the termination of an arbitrator's mandate.
The court has the authority to direct an arbitrator to pass the award expeditiously, considering the delay and the parties' agreement to proceed with the same arbitrator.
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 ab....
Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act mandates the termination of an arbitrator's mandate if applicable, ensuring appointment of a qualified substitute arbitrator for fairness in proc....
The de jure disqualification of an Arbitrator under A&C Act, 1996, Section 14(1) leads to the termination of the mandate and the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.
Court appointed a new Sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act due to the previous Arbitrator's demise, allowing all parties to raise issues before the new Arbitrator.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the arbitrator ineligible, necessitating the appointment of a ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.