Union of India & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd.
|
Head Note
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 , Section 14 , Section 15 , Section 32
Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator - Power of the Court - Held that the appointment of arbitrator by the Court, of its own choice, departing from the arbitration clause is not unknown and has become an acceptable proposition of law which can be termed as a legal principle which has come to be established by a series of judgments of this Court - The appellant has not questioned the order of the High Court in so far as it has terminated the mandate of the earlier Arbitral Tribunal because of their inability to perform the task assigned to them - In such a situation, leaving the respondent at the mercy of the appellant thereby giving the power to the appellant to constitute another Arbitral Tribunal would amount to adding insult to the serious injury already suffered by the respondent because of non-conclusion of the arbitral proceedings even when the dispute were raised in the year 2007 - Time has come when the appointing authorities have to take call on such aspects failing which (as in the instant case), Courts are not powerless to remedy such situations by springing into action and exercising their powers as contained in Section 11 of the Act to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal, so that interest of the other side is equally protected - Appeal liable to be dismissed with costs.
Topic(s)-Arbitration - Termination of Arbitrator