Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8) Mr. Charalwar would further submit that no period of limitation applies for seeking substitution of arbitrator in a composite application filed under Section 11 r/w. Sections 14 and 15 of the 2000 (4) Mh. L.J. 341 (2024) 7 SCC 1 12 FEBRUARY 2025 Neeta Sawant CARAP(L) 26333 of 25 and CARAP(L) 25611 of 2025 Arbitration Act. That there is a marked difference between seeking reference for constitution of Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, for which the application may have to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of invocation and mere substitution of Arbitrator in a live reference, for which no period of limitation would be applicable since arbitral reference continues.

12 FEBRUARY 2025 Neeta Sawant CARAP(L) 26333 of 25 and CARAP(L) 25611 of 2025

30) Thus, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act needs to be filed within a period of 3 years from the date of delivery of notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act.

31) Mr. Charalwar has strenuously submitted that the principle of application of limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act to an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act cannot be applied in a case where a party files a composite application under Section 11, 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act. I am unable to agree. This is because Section 15 of the Arbitration Act provides that 'same rules' as are applicable for appointment of arbitrator would apply even to an appointment of substitute arbitrator. Therefore, when a composite application is filed under Section 11, 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act, all rigours of Section 11 would apply even for substitute arbitrator including the period of limitation. It is otherwise incomprehensible that an application for appointment of substitute arbitrator can be filed at any point of time without any restriction of limitation. Since same rules applicable to appointment of earlier arbitrator also apply for appointment of substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2), the period of limitation for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) would equally apply when a composite application is presented for appointment of substitute arbitrator under Section 11, 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act.

33) The above observations are made by the Apex Court in the light of the issue of substitution of arbitrator when the clause names an arbitrator. It is held that though there is statutory mandate for appointment of substitute arbitrator, since 'same rules' apply, one needs to have regard to the arbitration agreement. To this extent only the judgment would be relevant to the facts of the present case. However, for deciding the issue of application of period of limitation for appointment of substitute arbitrator, the judgment in Shailesh Dhairyawan (supra) does not assist the case of the Applicants in support of their contention that no period of limitation can be applied for deciding composite application under Sections 11, 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act. In my view therefore, period of limitation would apply even for appointment of substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Act.