Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a common judgment and order dated 07.09.2017 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which terminated the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed by the parties and appointed a new arbitrator due to undue delay in arbitration proceedings. The dispute was a family matter concerning property partition, referred to arbitration on 04.08.2008. The sole arbitrator scheduled hearings but faced delays, leading to the revocation of his mandate by some parties in July 2009. The appellant contested the termination, arguing that the sole arbitrator had not delayed proceedings and that the application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable since the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent without a written agreement. The High Court found that the delay justified the termination of the arbitrator's mandate under section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The appellant's writ petitions challenging the dismissal of his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure were also dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the application under section 11(6) was not maintainable in the absence of a written arbitration agreement and that the aggrieved party must approach the court for termination of the arbitrator's mandate under section 14(2). The court clarified that the distinction between sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act is significant, and the latter applies only when there is a written agreement regarding the appointment of the arbitrator.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Termination of Arbitrator's Mandate - High Court's Authority - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 11(6), 14(1)(a) - The High Court's decision to terminate the mandate of the sole arbitrator was based on undue delay in proceedings, which was deemed justified under section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The court held that the application under section 11(6) was not maintainable as the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent without a written agreement (Paras 6.3, 7.3). B) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Application - Absence of Written Agreement - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The court ruled that an application under section 11(6) is maintainable only when there is a written agreement containing the arbitration clause. In the absence of such an agreement, the application was dismissed (Paras 6.3, 7.3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in exercise of powers under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can terminate the mandate of the sole arbitrator?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to terminate the mandate of the sole arbitrator and dismissed the appeals, ruling that the application under section 11(6) was not maintainable in the absence of a written arbitration agreement.
Law Points
- Arbitration
- Conciliation
- Delay in Proceedings
- Termination of Mandate
- Appointment of Arbitrator
