Application for substituting arbitrator dismissed. Mandate extended for six months to complete proceedings. Court ruled substitution unsupported as parties retain rights to initiate independent legal actions outside arbitration agreement.
Extension of arbitrator's mandate for six months; request to substitute arbitrator rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appln.No.3691 of 2024
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
Today, when the application is taken up hearing, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent would contend that they do not have any objection for extending the mandate, but not before the very same Arbitrator. He would request this Court to substitute new Arbitrator.
29(A)(6) to substitute the existing Arbitrator. The allegations are only as against the applicants.
any further proceedings as against the respondents which may not fall within
the four corners of the Arbitration agreement. Therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be sustained by this Court.
10.09.2024
tsh
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.,
2/3
tsh
Appln.No.3691 of 2024
10.09.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court can substitute the existing arbitrator when the respondent requests it due to procedural delays and health issues.
Applicant
Respondent
K. KUMARESH BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
