Substitution Of Arbitrators, Unaddressed Statutory Imperative In Jagdeep Chowgule

The evolution of arbitration law in India reflects a persistent legislative endeavour to create an efficient alternative to traditional litigation. The Arbitration Act, 1940, despite its historical significance, was marked by excessive judicial oversight and procedural complexity that often defeated the very purpose of arbitration. The arbitral process under the 1940 regime became mired in delays, with courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction at nearly every stage from appointment of arbitrators to enforcement of awards. What was intended as a swift and effective mode of dispute resolution frequently descended into protracted litigation.The enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 marked a paradigm shift. Drawing inspiration from the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, the 1996 Act sought to minimize judicial intervention, enhance party autonomy, and establish a streamlined framework for both domestic and international commercial arbitration. The new legislation consolidated the law relating to arbitration, conciliation, and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, while expressly repealing the 1940 Act. The legislative intent was clear: arbitration was to be truly alternative, not merely a prelude to litigation.Yet, as judicial precedents accumulated, it became apparent that the 1996 Act was not entirely free from interpretive challenges. The Law Commission of India, through its 246th Report, identified several areas requiring reform. These recommendations culminated in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which introduced significant changes aimed at making Indian arbitration more efficient and internationally competitive. Among the most important innovations was Section 29A, which imposed, for the first time, a statutory time limit for making arbitral awards. This provision responded to the widespread perception that arbitration in India had become nearly as time-consuming as court litigation. The Section mandated that arbitral tribunals must render their awards within twelve months of entering upon reference, extendable by six months with the consent of parties. Any further extension required an application to the court, and failure to obtain such extension would result in termination of the arbitrators' mandate.Critically, Section 29A(6) empowered the court, while granting extension of time, to substitute one or all of the arbitrators. This provision contemplated scenarios where delay might be attributable to the arbitral tribunal itself, and the court, in extending time, could reconstitute the tribunal to ensure expeditious completion of proceedings. The newly appointed arbitrators would be deemed to have received all evidence and material already on record, ensuring continuity despite the change in composition. Subsequent amendments in 2019 and 2021 refined various aspects of the arbitration framework but left the core structure of Section 29A largely intact, save for exempting international commercial arbitrations from its application.While Section 29A introduced the mechanism for court ordered substitution in the context of time extension, another provision Section 15 had long governed the general principles of substitution when an arbitrator's mandate terminated. Section 15(2) contains a deceptively simple but fundamentally important prescription, where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. This provision creates a statutory link between the original appointment mechanism and any subsequent substitution, mandating procedural continuity and institutional coherence.The interpretive challenge arises when these two provisions are read together. Section 29A(6) vests the power of substitution in "the Court" when extending time under Section 29A(4). Section 15(2) requires that such substitution follow the rules applicable to the original appointment. The definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act specifies that in domestic arbitrations, "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. This definition, however, begins with a critical qualifier "unless the context otherwise requires."The controversy centres on the following scenario (i) if an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, a provision that vests the power of appointment exclusively in the Supreme Court or the High Court, can a civil court subsequently substitute that arbitrator under Section 29A(6) while complying with the mandate in Section 15(2) to follow the rules applicable to the original appointment? The question acquired urgency as different High Courts arrived at divergent answers.A significant line of judicial authority interpreted the phrase "unless the context otherwise requires" ...

Substitution Of Arbitrators, Unaddressed Statutory Imperative In Jagdeep Chowgule

Manoj Munshi

Tags