Withdrawal of an arbitrator constitutes sufficient cause for substitution and extension of the arbitral mandate.

The petitions arose from nine arbitral proceedings between the parties.

The Delhi High Court had initially appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Retd.), former Judge of the Supreme Court, as the Sole Arbitrator on 8 January 2021, before whom the proceedings substantially progressed.

Following proceedings seeking substitution, the Court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sistani (Retd.) as the substituted Sole Arbitrator on 14 May 2024.

By order dated 1 July 2024, Justice Sistani declined the Petitioners’ proposed fee and cancelled further hearings.

He subsequently confirmed his withdrawal from all nine proceedings by email dated 26 January 2025.

The Petitioners therefore filed O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 79/2024 under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for substitution of the Arbitrator, and O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 956/2025 under Section 29A for extension of the arbitral mandate.

Four references had reached the stage of final arguments, while the remaining five were at different stages.

Whether Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sistani (Retd.), having withdrawn from the nine arbitral proceedings, should be substituted under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act.

Whether sufficient cause existed to extend the mandate of the nine arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the Act, despite the mandate having expired.

From what stage should the substituted Arbitrator continue the nine arbitral proceedings.

The Court applied Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which permit termination and substitution of an arbitrator where the arbitrator withdraws from office or is otherwise unable to perform the mandate.

It also applied Section 29A of the Act, under which the Court may extend the arbitral mandate where sufficient cause is shown.

The Court further applied the procedural principle that, upon substitution, the arbitral proceedings should ordinarily continue from the stage at which they were left, subject to directions necessary to ensure an expeditious and fair conclusion.

The Court found that Justice Sistani had withdrawn from office and that, consequently, no further proceedings could take place in any of the nine references.

Since the Respondents did not identify any objection on the merits either to substitution or to extension of the mandate, and there was no material suggesting prejudice to either party, substitution was considered necessary to secure the expeditious continuation of the arbitrations.

The Court also held that the prolonged pendency and inconclusiveness of the proceedings resulted primarily from the Arbitrator’s withdrawal, constituting sufficient cause under Section 29A for extending the mandate.

To preserve procedural progress, the substituted Arbitrator was directed to commence the four references in which final arguments had already been heard from that stage, and to continue the remaining five references from their respective stages.

Mr. Attau Rahman Masoodi, Retd. Judge of the Allahabad High Court, was appointed as the substitute Sole Arbitrator for all nine references and directed to proceed within three weeks.

The four references at the stage of final arguments were to continue from that stage, while the remaining five were to proceed from the stages at which they had been interrupted.

The mandate of all nine arbitral proceedings was extended for one year from 8 September 2026, and the period up to that date was regularised.

The Arbitrator’s fees were left to be mutually determined by the parties and the Arbitrator.

The petitions were accordingly disposed of.