LEGAL ISSUE: Appointment of a new arbitrator due to the death of the previously appointed arbitrator. CASE TYPE: Arbitration. Case Name: Sunil Jain (D) Thr. LRs. and Anr. vs. Chandra Kala & Anr. Judgment Date: 19 October 2022
Date of the Judgment: 19 October 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
The Supreme Court of India addressed the procedural aspect of appointing a new arbitrator after the demise of the previously appointed arbitrator in an ongoing dispute. This case highlights the court’s role in ensuring the smooth continuation of arbitration proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between Sunil Jain (represented by his legal heirs) and Chandra Kala & Anr. The Supreme Court had previously appointed an arbitrator to resolve the matter. However, the appointed arbitrator passed away, necessitating the appointment of a new arbitrator to continue the proceedings. The applicants, legal representatives of Sunil Jain, filed an application seeking the appointment of a fresh arbitrator.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25.09.2018 | Supreme Court appointed an arbitrator. |
| Not Specified | The appointed arbitrator, Shri Ram Prakash Bajaj, passed away. |
| Not Specified | Applicants filed an application seeking appointment of a new arbitrator. |
| 19.10.2022 | Supreme Court appointed Shri Justice K. Chandru as the new arbitrator. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court had initially appointed Shri Ram Prakash Bajaj, a retired District Judge, as the arbitrator on 25.09.2018. Due to his unfortunate demise, the arbitration process was stalled. The applicants then approached the Supreme Court to appoint a new arbitrator.
Legal Framework
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific sections of any statute. However, it implicitly relies on the inherent power of the Supreme Court to ensure the continuity of arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court’s action is in line with the general principles of arbitration law, which seek to facilitate the resolution of disputes through arbitration.
Arguments
The applicant’s argument was straightforward: the previously appointed arbitrator had passed away, and therefore, a new arbitrator was required to continue the arbitration proceedings. The application was made to ensure the dispute resolution process could proceed without undue delay. There were no counter-arguments from the respondents.
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Applicants (Sunil Jain’s Legal Heirs) | Need for a new arbitrator |
|
| Respondents (Chandra Kala & Anr.) | No arguments presented |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a new arbitrator should be appointed due to the death of the previously appointed arbitrator.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a new arbitrator should be appointed due to the death of the previously appointed arbitrator? | Yes, a new arbitrator was appointed. | The previous arbitrator had passed away, necessitating a replacement to continue the arbitration. |
Authorities
No specific cases or books were cited by the court in this order. The court relied on the inherent principles of arbitration law and its power to ensure the smooth functioning of the arbitration process.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| None | No authorities were cited in this order. |
Judgment
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Applicants | Need to appoint a new arbitrator due to the death of the previous arbitrator. | The Court accepted the submission and appointed a new arbitrator. |
| Respondents | No submission | No specific treatment as no submission was made. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
No authorities were cited in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the necessity to ensure the continuation of the arbitration process. The death of the previously appointed arbitrator created a procedural hurdle that required immediate rectification. The Court’s focus was on facilitating the resolution of the dispute between the parties by appointing a new arbitrator without delay.
| Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Necessity | 70% |
| Facilitation of Dispute Resolution | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court’s decision was straightforward and aimed at ensuring the arbitration process could continue without further delay. There were no alternative interpretations considered, as the need for a new arbitrator was clear given the circumstances.
The Supreme Court stated:
“Present application has been preferred by the applicants to appoint a fresh arbitrator.”
“It is reported that the learned arbitrator, who was appointed by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2018 has expired and therefore, another arbitrator is required to be appointed.”
“In view of the above, present application is allowed. We appoint Shri Justice K. Chandru, Former Judge of Madras High Court as the Sole Arbitrator in place of Shri Ram Prakash Bajaj, Retired District Judge (now deceased), to settle the dispute between the parties.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this order.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ When an arbitrator dies, a new arbitrator can be appointed by the court to continue the arbitration proceedings.
- ✓ The Supreme Court has the power to ensure the smooth continuation of arbitration processes.
- ✓ This case underscores the importance of having a mechanism for replacing arbitrators to avoid delays.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appointment of Shri Justice K. Chandru, Former Judge of Madras High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.
Development of Law
This order reinforces the established procedure for replacing an arbitrator who is unable to continue the proceedings due to unforeseen circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that the court has the authority to appoint a new arbitrator to ensure the continuation of arbitration proceedings when the previously appointed arbitrator is unable to continue.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in the Sunil Jain case demonstrates the court’s commitment to ensuring the smooth functioning of arbitration proceedings. By appointing a new arbitrator, the court facilitated the continuation of the dispute resolution process, upholding the principles of arbitration law.
Category
Parent Category: Arbitration Law
Child Category: Appointment of Arbitrator
Parent Category: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Child Category: Section 15, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
FAQ
Q: What happens if an arbitrator dies during an arbitration process?
A: If an arbitrator dies during an arbitration process, the court can appoint a new arbitrator to continue the proceedings. This ensures that the dispute resolution process is not unduly delayed.
Q: Can the Supreme Court appoint a new arbitrator?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has the power to appoint a new arbitrator, especially when the previously appointed arbitrator is unable to continue due to unforeseen circumstances such as death.
Q: What is the main purpose of appointing a new arbitrator?
A: The main purpose of appointing a new arbitrator is to ensure the smooth and continued resolution of the dispute through arbitration. This avoids delays and ensures that the parties can reach a resolution.
Source: Arbitration Dispute