New Arbitrator Must Initiate Proceedings Afresh When Previous Arbitrator's Appointment Is Void Ab Initio: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim has held that where an arbitral award is set aside on the ground that the appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio and the arbitral proceedings are declared non est, the new arbitrator must initiate proceedings afresh. The question of admissibility of previously recorded evidence is to be decided by the new arbitrator. Brief Facts The petitioner, M.I. Mohammed, a government contractor, entered into an agreement with M/s HLL Life Care Ltd. Disputes arose and, in accordance with the arbitration clause, an arbitrator was appointed by the Managing Director of HLL Life Care Ltd. The Arbitrator passed the award. HLL challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, contending that the appointment of the arbitrator was invalid as it was made unilaterally. The Court set aside the award. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of a new arbitrator and a direction that the proceedings commence from where evidence had concluded before the previous arbitrator. Observations The Court observed that once the arbitral award has been set aside on the ground that the appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio, the arbitral proceedings are rendered non est. The Court held that the entire proceedings, which already took place before the arbitrator, are effaced. The fresh Arbitrator has to initiate the proceedings afresh. The Court refused to issue any directions regarding the use of evidence tendered before the earlier arbitrator, stating that while considering an Application under Section 11(6), the Court is not expected to give any direction with respect to the proceedings and admissibility of any document or evidence to the Arbitrator. The court left such questions open to be decided by the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court appointed Justice (Retd.) Mrs. Sophy Thomas as the sole arbitrator. Case Title: M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors. Case Number: AR No. 95 of 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 347 For Petitioner: Sri. K. Babu Thomas, Smt. Marykutty Babu, Smt. Drisya Dileep, Advocates. For Respondents:Four Pillars Chambers, headed by Advocate Nikhilesh Krishnan, assisted by Abhishek Bhushan Singh, Aju Mathew, and Abu Mathew, Advocates. Click Here To Read/Download The Order

New Arbitrator Must Initiate Proceedings Afresh When Previous Arbitrator's Appointment Is Void Ab Initio: Kerala High Court

Tazeen Ahmed

Tags