AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking appointment of any other arbitrator replacing the arbitrator appointed by the department on the ground that the arbitrator is not giving the award.
It appears that the arbitrator was appointed by the department vide order dated 10.4.2006 for the adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The arbitrator has entered into arbitration. A claim has been filed by the petitioner to which a reply has been submitted. The arbitration is thus in progress.
The mandate of the arbitrator has not been terminated as envisaged under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act. In this view of the matter, when an arbitrator is seized with the matter and his mandate not been terminated a fresh arbitrator replacing the earlier one cannot be appointed.
In case petitioner feels that arbitrator is unable to perform his functions, it is open for him to get his mandate determined by the Court u/s 14(2) of the Act.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.