• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) S. 15(2) - Arbitrator replaced - Any hearings previously held by the replaced arbitrator may or may not be repeated at the discretion of the newly appointed Tribunal, unless parties have agreed otherwise - Equally, orders or rulings of the earlier arbitral Tribunal are not to be invalid only because there has been a change in the composition of the earlier Tribunal, subject, of course, to a contrary agreement by parties - This also indicates that the object of speedy resolution of disputes by arbitration would best be sub-served by a substitute arbitrator continuing at the point at which the earlier arbitrator has left off. (S.C.)(183) P.L.R.
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) S. 15(2) - Arbitrator to whom the matter was referred earlier with the consent of the parties withdraws therefrom - Where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator "shall" be appointed - This can only be done where the arbitration agreement does not show that it was intended that the vacancy caused be not supplied unless it is clear that an arbitration agreement on the facts of a particular case excludes either expressly or by necessary implication the substitution of an arbitrator, whether named or otherwise, such a substitution must take place - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 (26 of 1940) Sectrion 8(1)(b). (S.C.)(183) P.L.R.
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) S. 15(2) - Once arbitration agreement was entered into between the parties, that too in a pending suit, the intention of the parties was to settle the matter through arbitration and not to come back to the Court again for decision of the same dispute by court adjudicatory process - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 89. Held, per A.K. Sikri, J, J.) that for enacting Section 89 is to encourage the parties to the dispute to settle their dispute by adopting one of the four methods provided therein. Not only that it results in lessening the burden of the court, experience has shown that many cases which come to the Court can be resolved more suitably and with better outcomes if the methods of ADR prescribed in Section 89 of the CPC are resorted to. It is here that depending upon the nature of dispute and relationship between the parties etc., the Court may suggest a particular form of ADR, whether arbitration or mediation etc. can be chosen. Therefore, what is to be kept in mind is that once arbitration agreement was entered into between the parties, that too in a pending suit, the intention of the parties was to settle the matter through arbitration and not to come back to the Court again for decision of the same dispute by court adjudicatory process. (S.C.)(183) P.L.R.