Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, C.J
Neelam Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Ram Pal Shukla – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application seeks arbitrator substitution under section 15 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural history of arbitrator appointments and challenges (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. mandate terminates per sections 14-15; substitute required (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. barred by res judicata, limitation, finality arguments (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. cannot retract prior consent for sole arbitrator (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. liberal sections 14-15 interpretation mandates substitutes (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. technicalities cannot defeat arbitration; application maintainable (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. records to sole arbitrator for expeditious proceedings (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
The present application being OMP No.1105 of 2024 in Arbitration Case No.31 of 2004 has been filed by the applicant- respondent under Section 15 sub-Section (2) and (3) of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT , 1996 read with Section 15 1 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC), 1908 seeking the relief of sending the records of Arbitration Case No.31 of 2004 titled as Neelam Shukla Vs. Ram Pal Shukla to the learned Arbitrator Hon’ble
Technical dismissals/withdrawals do not bar Section 15 application for substitute sole arbitrator post prior death; mandate terminates under Act only for specified reasons, courts must facilitate res....
The court established that upon recusal of an Arbitrator, a substitute must be appointed per Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, adhering to the initial appointment rules.
The interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the ru....
Arbitrators must be impartial and capable of performing their duties; prolonged inaction in arbitration proceedings justifies termination of their mandate.
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....
No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 3....
Point of Law : Power to modify, vary or remit the award does not exist under Section 34 of the Act.
The petitioner must first seek termination of the existing Arbitrator's mandate through the appropriate civil court before requesting a new Arbitrator, as the existing proceedings had commenced.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
