SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN versus MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA

SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN versus MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA

Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the appointment of a substitute arbitrator upon termination of the mandate of an arbitrator unless the arbitration agreement expressly or by necessary implication prohibits such substitution. The court has the power to appoint a substitute arbitrator, and this provision must be interpreted liberally to serve the objective of speedy dispute resolution by arbitration.

Parties
Appellant: Shailesh Dhairyawan; Respondent: Mohan Balkrishna Lulla
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Substitute Arbitrator, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses, Purposive Interpretation, Section 89 CPC, Section 15(2) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Arbitration Civil Procedure Appointment of Substitute Arbitrator Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses Purposive Interpretation Section 89 CPC Section 15(2) Arbitration and Conciliation Act

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shailesh Dhairyawan

Appellant

Mohan Balkrishna Lulla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies when a named arbitrator resigns and the arbitration agreement does not expressly prohibit appointment of a substitute arbitrator
  2. 2 Whether courts have the power to appoint a substitute arbitrator in such circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the appointment of a substitute arbitrator upon termination of the mandate of an arbitrator unless the arbitration agreement expressly or by necessary implication prohibits such substitution. The court has the power to appoint a substitute arbitrator, and this provision must be interpreted liberally to serve the objective of speedy dispute resolution by arbitration.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Substitute arbitrator appointed by Bombay High Court affirmed
  • Original arbitration agreement continues, subject to appointment of substitute arbitrator as per Section 15(2)