SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Elekta Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences - Respondent
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 18 of 2021 & I.A. 2055 of 2021 (Section 151 CPC)
Decided On : 09-08-2021




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 proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 12(5) - Termination of the mandate of the arbitrator due to applicability of relevant Supreme Court judgments - Court appoints a new arbitrator to continue proceedings. (Paras 1-4)

(B) The determination of arbitrator appointment is based on compliance with statutory provisions and judicial precedents, ensuring fairness in arbitration. (Paras 1-3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought termination of an arbitrator's mandate based on Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, citing Supreme Court judgments. The respondent conceded to this applicability, leading to the appointment of a new arbitrator.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in terminating the arbitrator's mandate and appointed a substitute arbitrator, tasked with continuing the proceedings.

Issues: The primary issue was the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning the arbitrator's mandate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 12(5) requires termination of the arbitrator's mandate when applicable rules or precedents dictate, showcasing the importance of adhering to legal frameworks in arbitration.

Result: Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. termination of arbitrator's mandate under section 12(5). (Para 1)
2. consent on applicability of legal provisions. (Para 2 , 3)
3. appointment of substitute arbitrator. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. disposition of petition and application. (Para 7)

ORDER (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 18/2021

1. The petitioners, by this petition, seek termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, presently in seisin of the disputes between the parties in view of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act") read with the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 755, Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 and Haryana Space Application Centre v. Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 103.

2. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, fairly concedes to the applicability of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act as well as the aforesaid decisions and, therefore, submits that this Court may appoint an arbitrator in place of the arbitrator presently in seisin of the disputes.

3. As such, without meaning any disrespect to the learned Arbitrator presently seized with the disputes between the parties - who is a learned retired Judge of this Court - and solely because of the applicability of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court read with Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, this Court is constrained to terminate the appointment of the said learned Arbitrator.

4. In his place, this Court requests Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, who has also been Acting Chief Justice of this Court, and whose name is acceptable to learned Counsel for both sides, to take over as substitute arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties. The learned Arbitrator would continue the proceedings from the stage at which they stand presently.

5. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.

6. The learned Arbitrator would be entitled to fees as were being paid to the earlier arbitrator, who was in seisin of the disputes.

7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

I.A. 2055/2021 (Section 151 CPC)

In view of the order passed in the petition, this application stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top