Courts may extend expired arbitral mandates and appoint substitute arbitrators upon sufficient cause.

The parties’ disputes under a Kisan Call Centre services agreement were referred to arbitration before a sole arbitrator.

Pleadings and the claimant’s evidence were complete, and cross-examination of the respondent’s witness remained unfinished when the arbitrator died on 27 February 2026.

The arbitral mandate expired on 22 March 2026.

The petitioner sought appointment of a substitute arbitrator and extension of time; the respondent raised delay and other objections but, at the hearing, agreed to substitution by the Court and continuation of the proceedings under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

The parties agreed that the proceedings would continue from the stage already reached.

1. Whether the Court could appoint a substitute sole arbitrator and extend the time for making the award after the previous arbitrator’s death and expiry of the mandate.

2. Whether the delay in seeking relief and the parties’ agreement to proceed under DIAC warranted granting the requested relief.

Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for appointment of a substitute arbitrator according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced.

Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5) empower the Court to extend the time for making an award, including after expiry of the prescribed period, where sufficient cause is shown; the discretion is judicial and may be made subject to terms.

Under Sections 29A(6) and 29A(7), a reconstituted tribunal is deemed to continue the prior tribunal, and the proceedings resume from the stage already reached, with existing evidence and material treated as received by the substitute tribunal.

Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, confirms that post-expiry extension applications are maintainable and that substitution does not require a fresh Section 11 application.

Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles, 2025 INSC 1409, recognises the Court’s power to substitute an arbitrator whose mandate has ceased.

The Court also relied on ATC Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. BSNL, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135, for the principle that a short delay in filing does not, by itself, prevent an extension where warranted.

Shaf Broadcast (P) Ltd. v. Doordarshan, (2019) 10 SCC 447, on consensual modification of an arbitration arrangement.

The arbitrator’s death shortly before expiry of the mandate was an unforeseen event that halted proceedings; the record did not indicate laxity by the petitioner.

The delay was not inordinate or shown to be mala fide, and the respondent established no prejudice.

Refusing relief would have rendered more than fifteen months of proceedings nugatory, while the arbitration was already at an advanced stage.

The parties’ consent permitted the Court to appoint the substitute arbitrator and shift administration from IIAC to DIAC.

Given the limited remaining evidence and arguments, six months was sufficient to complete the arbitration.

The Court appointed Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh as substitute sole arbitrator, directed that the arbitration proceed under DIAC rules, and ordered continuation from the remaining cross-examination of RW-1 on the existing record.

The time to complete the proceedings and make the award was extended by six months from the substitute arbitrator’s entry upon reference.

The parties’ claims and counterclaims were left open for decision on their merits.