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.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, ACJ.

1. This is an application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 r/w Section 15 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator earlier appointed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.12.2021 had recused, therefore, the applicant has sought appointment of sole Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 45.2 of the agreement dated 05.08.2016. The order dated 31.12.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench in Arbitration Petition No.34 of2021 is reproduced below:

“1. In this application, filed under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act’), the applicant has prayed for appointment of one or more independent and impartial persons as Arbitrator(s) to constitute a sole Arbitrator.

2. Clause 54.2 of the Agreement dated 05.08.2016 is the arbitration clause for resolving the disputes between the parties, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Both the learned counsel submit that the sole Arbitrator may be appointed. Both the learned counsel has made a suggestion before this Court that former Judge of this Court Mr. Justice V.K. Bist, R/o D-37, MDDA Colony, Sahastradhara Enclave, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, be appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

5. Hence, this application is disposed of accordingly by appointing Mr. Justice V.K. Bist, R/o D-37, MDDA Colony, Sahastradhara Enclave, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

6. Let the Arbitrator be intimated accordingly. The learned Arbitrator shall, in terms of Section 11 (8) of the 1996 Act, furnish his disclosure in writing to this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. He shall, thereafter, fix his remuneration, and charges towards other expenses, in consultation with the parties to the dispute. He shall endeavour to complete the arbitral proceedings, and to pass an award with utmost expedition, preferably within six months from the date on which he enters upon a reference.”

2. Perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that learned counsel for the respondent had conceded that there is an arbitration agreement in the contract and the dispute is arbitrable. Paragraph no.3 of the said order reveals that learned counsel for the respondent had also suggested the name of Mr. Justice V.K. Bist for appointment as Arbitrator, therefore, with the consent of parties, Mr. Justice V.K. Bist was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

3. It transpires that respondent moved an application before the sole Arbitrator under Section 12 (3)(a) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which was rejected by the Arbitrator, however, the Arbitrator, thereafter, recused from the matter and issued a letter dated 26.09.2023 to this Court, contents of the said letter are reproduced below:

“I was appointed Arbitrator in the above matter by the Hon’ble High Court, with the consent of both the parties. During the pendency of the proceedings PTCUL moved on application U/S 12(3) read with Section 13 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. I rejected the same on merits, but since the allegations levelled against the Arbitrator by PTCUL were personal in nature, I recused myself from the Arbitration proceedings.

I am sending the complete order sheet along with the entine record of the proceedings to the Hon’ble High Court. It is requested that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appointment of another Arbitrator at the earliest.”

4. Mr. Amit A