MOHAN LAL FATEHPURIA versus M/S BHARAT TEXTILES & ORS.

MOHAN LAL FATEHPURIA versus M/S BHARAT TEXTILES & ORS.

The sole arbitrator's mandate terminated by operation of law on 28.02.2023 upon expiry of the period fixed by Section 29A; continuation of an arbitrator after mandate expiry is impermissible; the High Court erred in extending the arbitrator's tenure after mandate had ceased; Section 29A(6) empowers and obligates the Court to substitute the arbitrator and the substituted arbitrator must continue proceedings from the stage already reached; accordingly the impugned High Court order was quashed, the sole arbitrator's mandate terminated, and a substitute arbitrator was appointed with directions to conclude proceedings within six months.

Parties
Appellant: Mohan Lal Fatehpuria; Respondent: M/s Bharat Textiles
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of the High Court Dated 22.04.2025
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Substitution of Sole Arbitrator, Time Limit for Arbitral Award, Deposit Administrative Expenses, Tenure for the Substitute Arbitrator, Section 29 a of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Substitution of Sole Arbitrator Time Limit for Arbitral Award Deposit Administrative Expenses Tenure for the Substitute Arbitrator Section 29 a of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohan Lal Fatehpuria

Appellant

M/s Bharat Textiles

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of the High Court Dated 22.04.2025

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substitution of the sole arbitrator under Section 29A(6) was warranted after his mandate terminated
  2. 2 Whether the High Court could extend the sole arbitrator's mandate after it had ceased by operation of law
  3. 3 Whether prior rejection of petitions under Sections 14 and 15 precluded substitution under Section 29A(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The sole arbitrator's mandate terminated by operation of law on 28.02.2023 upon expiry of the period fixed by Section 29A; continuation of an arbitrator after mandate expiry is impermissible; the High Court erred in extending the arbitrator's tenure after mandate had ceased; Section 29A(6) empowers and obligates the Court to substitute the arbitrator and the substituted arbitrator must continue proceedings from the stage already reached; accordingly the impugned High Court order was quashed, the sole arbitrator's mandate terminated, and a substitute arbitrator was appointed with directions to conclude proceedings within six months.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 22.04.2025 quashed and set aside
  • Mandate of sole arbitrator Mr. Anjum Javed terminated by operation of law