The Delhi High Court has refused to substitute the sole arbitrator and instead granted a short, final extension of the arbitral mandate to enable pronouncement of the award, holding that substitution at the terminal stage would defeat the objective of expeditious dispute resolution.
The petition was filed under Sections 14 and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking substitution of the arbitrator on the ground that the mandate had expired by efflux of time. The dispute arose out of a construction contract awarded by the Union of India. Arbitration was initially conducted by a sole arbitrator who passed away, following which Justice Vikramjit Sen, former Judge, Supreme Court of India was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the High Court.
At the time of Justice Sen’s appointment, pleadings were substantially complete, and the matter was at the stage of final arguments. Despite multiple extensions granted by the Court, the proceedings progressed slowly, largely due to disputes regarding arbitral fees and costs. Final arguments were eventually heard and the award was reserved on 6 July 2024. Even thereafter, the award was not pronounced, and the mandate was last extended till 30 September 2025.
Alleging failure on the part of the arbitrator to act within time, the petitioner sought substitution, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles,2025 INSC 1409, to argue that once the period under Section 29A expires, the arbitrator becomes functus officio and substitution is mandatory.
The Union of India, however, sought a short extension of the mandate, pointing out that after expiry of the mandate, the arbitrator had communicated on 10 November 2025 and 15 November 2025 that the award had already been prepared and was ready for pronouncement. It was argued that substitution at this stage would lead to a third round of adjudication and result in wastage of time, effort, and costs.
Justice Subramonium Prasad distinguished the reliance placed on Mohan Lal Fatehpuria, observing that the facts of the present case were materially different. The Court noted that the arbitral proceedings had already concluded and the award was ready, and therefore, the balance of convenience lay in granting a limited extension rather than unsettling the entire process at the final stage. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd.,2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, the Court held that it could regularise and extend the mandate in such circumstances.
Accordingly, the High Court regularised the arbitrator’s mandate from 30 September 2025 onwards and extended it till 31 January 2026 solely to enable pronouncement of the award. The Court made it clear that no further extensions would be granted. As a result, the petition seeking substitution was dismissed, and the application seeking extension of the mandate was allowed.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Ms. Akshita Katoch, Mr. Vikram Pradeep, Mr. Anay Khandelwal and Ms. Pratishtha Chauhan, Advs. Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv, Mr. Vikram Pradeep, Ms. Akshita Katoch, Mr. Anay Khandelwal and Ms. Pratishtha Chauhan, Advs.
For the Respondent: Dr. B Ramaswamy CGSC
