HC: Arbitrator’s mandate must be terminated if such Arbitrator fails to Act without undue delay [Read Judgment]

A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy terminated the mandate of an arbitrator who did not enter upon reference and failed to conduct hearings taking into consideration Section 14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the request of the parties, a new arbitrator was appointed.

Brief Facts:

The petitioners assert that the third respondent was appointed as arbitrator by order dated 13.04.2022 in O.P.No.394 of 2020. After the such appointment, by communication dated 23.05.2022, the petitioners requested the arbitrator to provide the declaration of acceptance and statement of evidence in terms of Schedule 4 to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. There was no response to the said communication.

Therefore, by subsequent communication dated 27.06.2022, the request was reiterated. Once again, there was no response. The present petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances. The petitioners wish to seek the termination of the mandate of the third respondent and his consequential substitution.

Observations of the Court:

The judges resorted to Section 14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and acknowledged that Clause (a) of Section 14(1) provides for the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator if such arbitrator fails to act without undue delay. Applying the provision in the present case, the judges took into consideration the fact that the appointment was authorized by order dated 13.04.2022 and the arbitrator has not entered upon reference or conducted hearings to date, a case is made out to terminate the mandate on the ground of undue delay.

Decision of the Court:

The previous arbitrator’s mandate was terminated and another advocate suggested by the parties was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Case Title: Mrs. Selvasundari and others vs M/s Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited and others

Coram: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Case No.: Arb.O.P.No.53 of 2022

Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. S. Jaganathan

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. C. Sakthimanikandan

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com: