demise of the previously appointed Sole Arbitrator constitutes the event triggering the start of the limitation period. Thus, the application for the appointment of a substitute Sole Arbitrator, being well within this three-year window, is timely and adheres to the legal framework as established by the Supreme Court. Further, in any event, considering that the initial arbitrator was appointed by Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, after taking into consideration the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, axiomatically the appointment of a substitute arbitrator shall also be undertaken in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the petition cannot be said to be beyond limitation. Moreover, since the proceedings had not even commenced and the demise of Arbitrator took place, the issue of abatement would not arise. 19. The Petitioner had in July, 2022 filed an application in the earlier arbitration petition being ARBP P. 49/2020 seeking the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator. The Petitioner has thereafter filed two more petitions i.e., under Section 11 and under Section 14/15 of the Act. It cannot be said that the Petitioner has not acted with alacrity. Thus, between 30th May, 2022 and 27th July, 2022, abatement prima facie could not have taken place and in any event this issue of abatement can even be raised before the ld. Arbitrator, if so advised.
