Additionally, Justice Deshpande also took note of another related question which arose in the present case.
In this case, the parties had initially consented to the constitution of a three-member arbitral tribunal. However, one of the members of the tribunal withdrew from the arbitration.
Another arbitrator appointed in his place also recused himself from the post, eventually leading the parties to approach the High Court with an application under Section 11(6) to appoint an arbitrator.
This plea was allowed by the High Court in 2023 and former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit was eventually appointed as the third (and presiding) arbitrator.
All of these events preceded the filing of the plea to extend the arbitral tribunal’s mandate.
Bearing these facts in mind, Justice Deshpande posed an additional question of how and where Section 29A applications ought to be entertained in cases where arbitral tribunals are constituted not on court orders, but based on consent by the parties.
The question framed in this respect reads:
“In the event an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators is constituted as per Section 11(2) i.e. with agreement and consent of the parties, fails to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, where an application under Section 29-A(4) would lie i.e. before the High Court or the Civil Court having original jurisdiction in the case of domestic arbitration?”
Source: Barandbench
