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 resolution overriding procedural hurdles absent merits adjudication.

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 Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (Retired) for concluding the arbitration proceedings or in the alternative to substitute a new Arbitrator to decide the case. A prayer has also been made that the appointment or mandate of the said Arbitrator may be substituted as per the mandate of Section 15 of sub-Sections (2) and (3) of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT , 1996, if this Court deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The application has been opposed tooth and nail by the non-applicant/petitioner on various grounds and therefore, keeping in view the background as such of the case which is revolving around solely on the point of the appointment of the Arbitrator, as per the agreement dated 21.06.1998. The history of the case is required to find out, in view of the stand taken by the non-applicant/petitioner, whether the matter had attained finality or not and whether the present application would be maintainable or not.

Background of the case:-

3. Apparently, on 15.03.2005 (Annexure P-1), while deciding the main case in Arb. Case No.31 of 2004 titled Neelam Shukla Vs. Ram Pal Shukla the then Chief Justice, while keeping in view the agreement dated 21.06.1998 between the parties and on the consensus that a three Member Arbitral Tribunal would not be appropriate had held that Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.L. Khurana a retired Judge of this Court would be a Single Member of the Arbitral Tribunal in place of aforesaid three Member Arbitral Tribunal, as per Clause 15 of the said agreement. Since the petitioner-Neelam Shukla was running “Hotel Silver Inn”, the boarding and lodging arrangements was to be done in the said hotel, keeping in view the dignity and status of the Arbitrator and the charges as such were fixed, while disposing of the petition. Unfortunately, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.L. Khurana expired on 13.05.2015 leading to OMP No.453 of 2015 being filed by the present applicant/respondent and vide order dated 29.02.2016, a learned Single Judge of this Court again constituted a three Member Arbitral Tribunal headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh Kanwar (retired), Mr. Lokender Thakur and Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocates, while terminating the earlier mandate.

4. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.9851- 9852/2016 titled Neelam Shukla Vs. Ram Pal Shukla, was preferred by petitioner-Neelam Shukla that the appointment of two assisting/co-arbitrators was wrong and response was filed by the present applicant/respondent that he at all had no objection if the matter is decided by a single Arbitrator namely Mr. Justice Kuldeep Singh Kanwar (retired) and he may continue the proceedings from the stage where the earlier Arbitrator had left it. On 25.08.2017, the petition was allowed being not opposed. Therefore, it was the case as such of the