$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 116/2025 SOPAN PROJECTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Seshagiri Vadlamani, Mr.

Siddharth Sachar and Ms.

Ananya Kukreti, Advocates.

versus GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr.

Shivank Diddi and Mr. Anuj Shrothriya, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, seeking substitution of the learned Arbitrator. The relief is necessitated on account of the termination of the Arbitrator‟s mandate pursuant to the Order dated 24.04.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 102/2023 „Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited vs. Sopan Projects‟.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Petition.

Signature Not Verified

3. It is contended that since the mandate of the learned Arbitrator stood terminated by the Co-ordinate Bench, such termination would amount to termination of the arbitral proceedings under Section 32 of the Act. On that premise, it is urged that a Petition under Section 15 of the Act would not be maintainable.

4. Elaborating further, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the parties would be required to recommence the entire arbitral process afresh, beginning with the issuance of a Notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act, followed by the filing of a petition under Section 11 of the Act, if required, for appointment of an Arbitrator, and only thereafter could a fresh Arbitrator be appointed.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and has carefully perused the material documents placed on record.

6. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission, which, in its considered view, is misconceived and unsustainable in law.

7. Section 15 of the Act, which deals specifically with termination of mandate and substitution of an Arbitrator, provides as follows:

“15. Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator.— (1) In addition to the circumstances referred to in Section 13 or Section 14, the mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate—

(a) where he withdraws from office for any reason; or (b) by or pursuant to agreement of the parties.

(2) Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced.

…..”

8. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it manifest that upon termination of the mandate of an Arbitrator, including a termination referable to Section 14 of the Act, the statutory Signature Not Verified consequence that follows is the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator in accordance with the procedure applicable to the original appointment. The legislative scheme does not contemplate a recommencement of the arbitral process from inception. Consequently, what is required in such circumstances is recourse to Section 15(2) of the Act for substitution of the Arbitrator, and not a fresh invocation of arbitration under Section 21 of the Act followed by proceedings under Section 11, if required, as contended on behalf of the Respondent.

9. This Court is guided by the recent judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Harshbir Singh Pannu v. Jaswinder Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2742 wherein it has been authoritatively held that where the mandate of an Arbitrator stands terminated, the remedy available to a party is not to recommence the entire arbitral process afresh, including the filing of a fresh petition under Section 11 of the Act.

10. In the said decision, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the statutory scheme of the Act, including the various provisions under which termi