Most attention in arbitration law goes to the beginning (Section 11 appointments) and the end (Section 34 challenges). The middle — what happens when the tribunal itself fails — is governed by Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: termination of the arbitrator’s mandate for inability, delay or withdrawal, and substitution so the reference survives the arbitrator. Because ineligibility under Section 12(5) also operates through this machinery, Section 14 petitions have become a significant battleground in Delhi’s commercial docket.
The grounds, sorted
| Ground | Source | Typical examples |
|---|---|---|
| De jure inability | Section 14(1)(a) | Ineligibility under Section 12(5)/Seventh Schedule — employee or consultant of a party; unilateral appointment by an interested person; supervening statutory bar |
| De facto inability | Section 14(1)(a) | Serious illness, relocation, loss of capacity to conduct proceedings |
| Failure to act without undue delay | Section 14(1)(a) | Proceedings dormant for long periods without explanation; persistent non-scheduling |
| Withdrawal or parties’ agreement | Sections 14(1)(b), 15(1) | Resignation for any reason; consensual replacement |
| Expiry of statutory time limits | Section 29A(4) | Award period expiring without extension — mandate terminates unless the court extends, with power to substitute while extending |
The unilateral-appointment problem
The most consequential modern use of Section 14 flows from the 2015 amendments: a person rendered ineligible by the Seventh Schedule — and, by settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, a person interested in the dispute — cannot act, and cannot unilaterally nominate a sole arbitrator either. Contracts in which one party’s managing director appoints the sole arbitrator remain common in supply, franchise and finance documentation; awards rendered by such appointees are built on sand. The clean remedy is a Section 14(2) petition declaring the mandate terminated de jure and a fresh appointment through consent or Section 11 — far cheaper than fighting the point after the award.
Running a Section 14 petition well
Mandate fights, badly run
Raised for the first time after an adverse procedural order; grounds mixing bias, delay and ineligibility; no chronology; the real object being to derail imminent hearings.
Mandate fights, well run
Raised promptly when the disqualifying fact surfaces; a single clean ground; documentary proof; a substitution proposal that keeps the arbitration’s timetable credible.
Institutional rules soften these disputes — DIAC and similar institutions have their own replacement machinery, which the Act respects through Section 15(2). One more drafting lesson follows: an appointment clause naming an institution, or a genuinely neutral appointing authority, almost never generates Section 14 litigation; a clause reserving appointment to one party almost always can.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What ends an arbitrator’s mandate under Section 14?
The mandate terminates when the arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or fails to act without undue delay, and he withdraws or the parties agree to the termination. De jure inability covers legal disqualification — most importantly, ineligibility under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule; de facto inability covers practical incapacity such as prolonged illness.
Who decides whether the mandate has terminated?
If a controversy remains, Section 14(2) lets a party apply to the "court" — for most commercial matters in Delhi, the High Court or the commercial court depending on jurisdiction — to decide on the termination. This is a summary determination, not a full-dress challenge procedure.
How is Section 14 different from a Section 13 challenge?
A challenge for justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality (Section 12(3)) travels through the tribunal itself under Section 13, and the aggrieved party’s remedy merges into the Section 34 stage. Unilateral ineligibility under Section 12(5) is different — the appointment is void, the mandate terminable directly under Section 14, and courts entertain such petitions during the arbitration.
What happens to hearings already held when a substitute steps in?
Section 15(3) provides that unless the parties agree otherwise, hearings previously held may be repeated at the discretion of the substitute tribunal; Section 15(4) preserves orders and rulings made before the replacement. The reference continues — substitution is continuity, not restart.