Summary
A claimant’s failure to seek hearing dates did not establish abandonment or justify terminating arbitration under Section 32(2)(c). The tribunal itself must schedule and adjudicate the reference, using the statutory default provisions where appropriate. Abandonment requires express conduct or compelling facts permitting only that inference; neither existed here. The High Court’s interference was upheld, with parties directed to secure a substitute after the arbitrator withdrew.
Issues
- When Section 32(2)(c) permits termination for unnecessary or impossible continuation.
- Whether prolonged inaction or absence alone establishes abandonment.
- Whether an arbitrator’s withdrawal terminates the underlying proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(2)(c), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Termination requires recorded satisfaction founded on material that continuation has become unnecessary or impossible. Proven abandonment can qualify, but cannot readily be inferred from inaction. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 20, 21)
- Sections 23–25, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The tribunal must fix hearings and manage adjudication. Failure to file the claim attracts the specified termination provision; absence or failure to produce evidence after filing permits continuation and an award on available evidence. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 21)
- Sections 14 and 15, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Withdrawal ends the arbitrator’s mandate, rather than the arbitration itself; substitution permits continuation. The termination was challenged under Section 14(2), and a substitute was required following withdrawal. (¶¶ 5, 11, 13, 22)
Held
- The existence of some reason to terminate is insufficient under Section 32(2)(c). The reason and record must support a finding that continuation is unnecessary or impossible; casual exercise would defeat arbitration’s purpose. (¶¶ 14, 15, 21)
- Once appointed, the tribunal must fix meetings/hearings and adjudicate rather than await a party’s request. After a claim has been filed, a party’s absence or failure to produce evidence is addressed by Section 25(c), which allows continuation on available material; it does not itself make continuation unnecessary. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 21)
- Abandonment may be express or implied, but implication requires clinching, convincing admitted or proved facts yielding only the conclusion that the claim has been given up. Mere failure to participate or ask for dates is insufficient. (¶¶ 16, 20, 21)
- Sheil and Marico had separate references before the same arbitrator. Sheil attended the hearings of Marico’s claim, which was taken first; no concurrent hearing of Sheil’s own claim was shown. Failure to challenge Marico’s award or request meetings did not abandon Sheil’s independent claim, including its alternative monetary relief. The termination finding lacked evidentiary support. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The appeal was dismissed without costs, sustaining the High Court’s setting aside of termination. Because the arbitrator had since withdrawn, parties must take lawful steps to appoint a substitute; withdrawal did not extinguish the proceedings. (¶¶ 11, 13, 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s reversal of arbitral termination upheld. Parties to secure a substitute arbitrator according to law following withdrawal. No costs.