Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator While Also Seeking Termination of Existing Arbitrator

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed an arbitration petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator while also seeking termination of the mandate of a sole arbitrator already conducting the proceedings.

A Single Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner and observed,

“It is very surprising as to how an application under Section 11 of the Act would be maintainable before this Court and a specific query in this regard was put to the learned counsel for the applicant, to which he could not answer. Similarly, it is also very surprising as to how an application under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act seeking termination of the mandate of an Arbitrator would be maintainable before this Court and that too read with Section 11 of the Act because such an application, if any, has to be filed before the learned Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and therefore, the applicant cannot seek substitution of the Arbitrator from this Court which is not the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.”

The dispute arose from an agreement between the applicant, a contractor, and the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. On August 27, 2025, the Board proposed three names for appointment as arbitrators.

The applicant responded on September 12, 2025, stating that the proposed names were not in conformity with the arbitration clause mutually agreed between the parties.

Thereafter, through an office order dated November 3, 2025, the Board appointed a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

While the arbitration proceedings were continuing before the sole arbitrator, the applicant approached the High Court under Section 11 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator.

The petition also sought termination of the mandate of the arbitrator already appointed and appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

The Court noted that the arbitrator had already been appointed and was proceeding with the arbitration. It also noted that an application seeking termination of the mandate of an arbitrator has to be filed before the court defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

Referring to the settled legal position, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, which held that when an arbitrator is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a party may directly approach the court under Section 14 for termination of the arbitrator's mandate.

The court concluded that the present arbitration case was “not only frivolous and vexatious but also amounts to wastage of the time of this Court.”

The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000. The court directed that the amount be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within two months. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the court stated that it may proceed in accordance with law, including recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. 

For applicant (Sunil Garg): Advocate Devansh Khanna.