The remedy for appointing a substitute Arbitrator upon recusal lies under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, not under Section 11, emphasizing specific procedures for termination of an Arbitrator's mandate.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The Petition beingO.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 98/2025 , Section 15 Petition has been filed under of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , Act , seeking the appointment of a substitute Sole Arbitrator.

2. The other Petition, beingARB.P. 1379/2025, Section 11 Petition, filed under of the Act, was instituted prior to the filing of the Section 15 Petition and seeks the appointment of an Arbitrator.

3. The learned Sole Arbitrator, appointed by this Court vide the Order dated 02.11.2020 passed in O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 249/2020, recused herself from the arbitration proceedings, which necessitated the Section 11 Petition.

4. However, vide Order dated 03.09.2025, in Section 11 Petition, this Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petition be treated as a petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, and thus, the same was ordered accordingly. Later, and as by way of abundant caution, the Petitioners appear to have filed the Section 15 Petition, and therefore, both the Petitions shall be disposed of by way of this common judgment.

BRIEF FACTS:

5. Shorn of unnecessary details, a conspectus of brief facts leading to the present petitions is as follows:

a. The parties herein executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.01.2020, MoU

b. The MoU contains an arbitration clause being Clause 6.3, which reads as under:

“6.3 Governing Law and Dispute Resolution All disputes, claims, suits and actions arising out of this MoU or its validity will be resolved through sole arbitrator as appointed in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

c. Owing to the disputes that had arisen between the parties, the Petitioners herein invoked arbitration by way of a notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 27.07.2020.

d. Subsequently, by way of an Order dated 02.11.2020 passed in O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 249/2020, this Court appointed Ms. Justice R. Bhanumathi (Retd. Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court) as the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes.

e. After completion of pleadings, the learned Arbitrator proceeded to the recording of testimonies of the parties.

f. It is stated that the cross-examination of the Claimant -Witness

1-Mr. Luv Jain CW-1, was fixed for 10.08.2025; however, owing to a medical exigency of CW-1, the same could not be concluded.

g. Thereafter, CW-1 addressed an email to the learned Sole Arbitrator on the very same evening, inter alia, seeking an amendment to the already-recorded answers.

h. By way of Procedural Order dated 12.08.2025, learned Sole Arbitrator terminated arbitration proceedings by recusing herself from the subject matter and also directed the parties herein to approach this Court for appropriate directions for the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.

6. It is in pursuance of this Order of recusal that the Petitioners herein have preferred the present Petitions.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 would raise serious objections to the present Petitions.

8. While candidly admitting that she is not averse to the appointment of another Arbitrator, she would, however, caveat the same with a request for directions to be issued as against the Petitioners on the basis that the Petitioners have been guilty of egregious misconduct and of lowering the majesty of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which comprised a Retired Judge