The Supreme Court has set aside an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had prematurely terminated the mandate of an arbitrator and directed the parties to propose a fresh name for appointment, holding that the High Court misinterpreted the law governing Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The appeal arose from an order dated 2 December 2025 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in an application related to ongoing arbitration proceedings between Viva Highways Ltd and the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles, 2025 INSC 1409, the High Court had declared that the arbitrator’s mandate stood terminated and proceeded to direct substitution of the arbitrator.
Allowing the appeal, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe clarified that the High Court had erroneously construed the expression used in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria. The Supreme Court explained that while Section 29A(6) empowers the court to substitute an arbitrator, it does not create a mandatory or automatic obligation to do so merely because the arbitral mandate has expired under Section 29A(4).
The Bench noted that this position had already been clarified in subsequent decisions, including C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, 2026 INSC 112 and Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, 2026 INSC 92, where the Court held that substitution of an arbitrator is not an inevitable consequence of expiry of mandate and must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Importantly, the Supreme Court further held that an application seeking extension of the arbitral mandate under Section 29A(4) does not lie before the High Court, and Section 11 of the Arbitration Act has no bearing on proceedings under Section 29A, which forms part of a distinct statutory scheme governing time limits in arbitration.
Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned High Court order and revived the application earlier disposed of by the Commercial Court, Bhopal, directing it to decide the plea for extension of the arbitrator’s mandate expeditiously. The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the extension application, which must be decided independently and in accordance with law.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Adv.; Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR; Ms. Chetna Alagh, Adv.; Mr. Mayank Biyani, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR; Mr. Swastik Singh, Adv.; Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv.; Mr. Hitesh Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Muskaan, Adv.; Mr. Birj Kant Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv.; Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.; Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Jogender Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Desh Pal Singh, Adv.; Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, AOR
