The Delhi High Court declined to substitute a retired Supreme Court judge as arbitrator despite a 16-month delay in pronouncing the award, holding that replacement at the final stage would cause duplication of effort and undermine the objective of expeditious arbitration.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with an ongoing arbitration by refusing to replace a retired Supreme Court judge who was acting as the sole arbitrator in a construction-related dispute, even though the arbitral award has been pending for 16–17 months.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, sitting as a single judge, observed that at this late stage of the proceedings, when the arbitrator has already completed hearings and prepared the award, ordering a substitution would undermine efficiency and defeat the purpose of arbitration.
ALSO READ: Courts Must Support Arbitration, Not Act as a Barrier: Justice Manmohan
Applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited, the High Court regularised the arbitrator’s mandate from September 30, 2025, till the date of the order, and granted a short final extension until January 31, 2026, solely to allow the pronouncement of the arbitral award.
The Court observed:
“Substitution of the Arbitrator at this juncture would result in avoidable duplication of effort and further delay, contrary to the objective of expeditious dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Background of the Arbitration Dispute
The dispute arose from a 2015–16 construction contract awarded by the Union of India for building dwelling units for officers, JCOs, and ORs in South Delhi.
- Arbitration was invoked in 2019 after disputes surfaced.
- The initially appointed arbitrator passed away.
- A retired Supreme Court judge was appointed as the sole arbitrator in December 2021.
- By that time, pleadings were nearly complete, and the matter was at the stage of final arguments.
The arbitrator heard final arguments and reserved the award in July 2024. However, the award was not delivered thereafter, leading to multiple extensions of the arbitrator’s mandate, the last of which expired on September 30, 2025.
What Plea Seeks
The private construction company filed a petition under Sections 14 and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking:
- Termination of the arbitrator’s mandate due to delay
- Appointment of a substitute arbitrator
The contractor argued that the prolonged delay amounted to the mandate ending by efflux of time.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams Poor Arbitration Clauses: Warns Against Misuse to Delay Justice
Opposing the plea, the Union of India sought a limited extension instead, pointing out that:
- The arbitrator had written to the parties in November 2025
- He clarified that the arbitral award had already been prepared and was ready for pronouncement
It was argued that replacing the arbitrator at this stage would lead to a third round of adjudication, causing wastage of judicial time, effort, and costs.
The High Court rejected the contractor’s reliance on Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles & Ors, holding that the facts of that case were distinguishable.
The Court emphasized that substantial judicial effort had already gone into the proceedings and that the arbitration had effectively concluded except for the formal pronouncement of the award.
Click Here to Read More On Arbitration
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES