After Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Withdraws From Wagon-Supply Arbitration, Delhi HC Appoints Ravi Shankar Jha As Substitute Sole Arbitrator

In brief

The question

Whether a substitute arbitrator should be appointed after the appointed sole arbitrator withdrew his consent to act

The court held

The Court allowed the request for substitution and appointed Justice Ravi Shankar Jha (Retd.) as sole arbitrator, directing him to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure within two weeks of doing so.

It also directed

The arbitration was to proceed under DIAC’s aegis, and the existing interim order was to continue in its existing terms.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The parties’ disputes arose from a contract for the manufacture and supply of wagons.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

The Court had appointed Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Retd.) as sole arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of DIAC; an interim application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was also directed to be placed before the tribunal.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

After pleadings were completed and the arbitral fee deposited, the proceedings reached the stage of framing points for determination and hearing the Section 17 application. The arbitrator then withdrew his consent to act.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

The petitioner sought appointment of a substitute arbitrator under Sections 15(2), 15(1)(a) and 11(6) of the Act.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether a substitute arbitrator should be appointed after the appointed sole arbitrator withdrew his consent to act

p. 2 · ¶ 4, 7

ii.Whether the existing interim order should continue pending consideration by the substitute tribunal

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 14–15

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Sections 15(1)(a) and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning termination of an arbitrator’s mandate and appointment of a substitute arbitrator, and Section 11(6), concerning court intervention in the appointment process.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

Section 12(2) requires the arbitrator to furnish the prescribed disclosure.

p. 3 · ¶ 9

The Court cited no precedent and set out no extended statutory analysis; it treated the arbitrator’s withdrawal of consent as leaving no impediment to appointing a substitute.

p. 2 · ¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 15 Section 11 Section 17 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the original sole arbitrator had withdrawn his consent and concluded that no further instructions from the respondent were required because the arbitrator had recused himself from the proceedings.

p. 2 · ¶ 6–7

It therefore appointed a substitute sole arbitrator, subject to the required disclosure, and directed that the arbitration proceed under DIAC’s rules and fee schedule.

p. 3 · ¶ 8–10

The Court preserved the existing interim order and left all substantive pleas for the substitute arbitrator to decide independently.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 11–14