SWADESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals arise out of impugned common judgment and order dtd. 7/9/2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Arbitration Case (AC) No. 29/2015 and in Writ Petition Nos. 11258/2010 and 11259/2010 and the order dtd. 17/11/2017 passed in Review Petition No. 655/2017, by which, the High Court in exercise of powers under sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) has terminated the mandate of sole Arbitrator appointed by the parties themselves and has substituted the sole Arbitrator and has appointed a fresh Arbitrator on the ground that the mandate of the sole Arbitrator stood terminated in view of sec. 14(1)(a) of the Act, 1996. This is on the basis that there was undue and unreasonable delay in proceeding with the arbitration proceeding by the Sole Arbitrator. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) preferred by the appellant herein.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under: -

(3.) Shri Divyakant Lahoti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has materially erred in terminating the mandate of the Arbitrator under sec. 14(1)(a) of the Act, 1996 on an application filed under sec. 11(6) of the Act, 1996.