Court emphasized that arbitration must preserve progress and ensure equitable resolution of disputes as per contractual terms.

11 16-12-2025 Re : I.A. No. 01 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court for substitution of the Arbitrator in terms of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4211 of 2025, whereby the impugned order dismissing Request Case No. 53 of 2020 was set aside, and the said SLP (C) No. 4211 of 2025 was allowed.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner entered into a works contract dated 04.03.2014, whereby Clause 25 of the said contract provided that the disputes arising between the parties shall be resolved through arbitration.

4. The petitioner by letter dated 18.09.2018, raised certain claims before the Deputy Chief Engineer, BRPNNL, for adjudication under Clause 25 of the said contract, but did not receive any response from the said authority. Further, a statutory appeal was preferred before the Managing Director, BRPNNL, as mandated under the contract, but the said appeal also remained unattended and undecided.

5. On 10.01.2020, the petitioner issued a notice of intention to commence Arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Agreement, calling upon the Managing Director, BRPNNL, to appoint an Arbitrator. As the concerned authority did not act upon/comply with the said notice, the petitioner moved before this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity “Act of

1996”).

6. Vide order dated 18.08.2021, Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Shivaji Pandey (Former Judge of Patna High Court) was appointed as the sole Arbitrator in the present case. The said arbitration proceedings went on for over three years with an active participation of both the parties.

7. Later on, a Civil Review Application No. 293 of

2024 was filed, wherein vide order dated 04.10.2024, this Court directed the learned Arbitrator (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey) to not proceed further on the ground that he had been appointed as President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Meghalaya. The Court also ordered that Request Case No. 53 of 2020 be listed for appointment of a new Arbitrator.

8. Thereafter, by judgment dated 09.12.2024, this Court dismissed the Request Case No. 53 of 2020, taking note of Clause 25 of the agreement dated 04.03.2014.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4211 of 2025. By judgment dated 28.11.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal and directed this Court to appoint a substitute Arbitrator within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. It was further directed that the newly appointed Arbitrator shall proceed from the stage at which the earlier proceedings were interrupted and shall endeavour to conclude the arbitration within a period of one year, subject to extension under Section 29A of the Act of 1996 by mutual consent of the parties, relevant portion of which reads as under :

“18. On the facts of this case, restarting the arbitral process de novo would be both inequitable and inefficient. It is just and proper that the progress already made be preserved. Therefore, the High Court is directed to appoint a substitute arbitrator within two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The newly appointed arbitrator shall continue the proceedings from the stage at which they were interrupted and endeavour to conclude them within one year, subject to any further extension under Section 29A by mutual consent.”

10. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the mandate of the erstwhile Arbitrator stands terminated in terms of Section 14 of the Act of 1996, and a substitute Arbitrat