9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appointment of substitute arbitrator under section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Interpretation of arbitration clause regarding the appointment of a Fellow of "Indian Institute of Architects" as an arbitrator. 3. Determining the reasonable time frame for appointing a substitute arbitrator. 4. Application of section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act in the case of substitution of an arbitrator. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought directions for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator under section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following the withdrawal of Shri S.M. Johri from the arbitration due to personal reasons. The petitioner argued that the respondents forfeited their right to appoint an arbitrator by failing to do so within a reasonable period. However, the respondent appointed Shri Tilak Raj Takulia as a substitute arbitrator, who accepted the appointment within a reasonable time, as per the arbitration clause. 2. The arbitration clause required the appointment of a Fellow of the "Indian Institute of Architects" as an arbitrator. The respondent's appointment of Shri Tilak Raj Takulia, a Fellow of the institute, met this requirement. The petitioner contended that the appointment was not communicated to all parties involved promptly, but the court found that the appointment was made within a reasonable time frame. 3. Regarding the reasonable time frame for appointing a substitute arbitrator, the court considered the notice given by the petitioner and the date of filing the petition. It was established that the appointment of the substitute arbitrator was made before the service of notice of the petition on respondent No. 1, thus meeting the requirement of being within a reasonable time. 4. The court clarified that the provisions of section 11(5) or 11(6) of the Act do not directly apply to the substitution or replacement of an already appointed arbitrator. Since there were no allegations of bias against the substitute arbitrator and the appointment met the qualifications required by the arbitration clause, no further directions were deemed necessary. The court concluded that the arbitrator substituted by the respondents would act in place of Shri S.M. Johri. In conclusion, the petition was disposed of in favor of the respondent, as the appointment of the substitute arbitrator was found to be in accordance with the Act and the terms of the arbitration clause, within a reasonable time frame, and meeting the qualifications required.
|
