A respondent who believes the arbitration is “illegal” and boycotts it; a claimant who invokes the clause and then loses interest; a party that files pleadings but vanishes before evidence — tribunals meet all three regularly. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 answers each with Section 25, a short provision with sharp consequences. Parties who understand it litigate differently; parties who do not discover its effects only when an ex parte award arrives for enforcement.
The three defaults, mapped
| Default | Provision | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Claimant fails to communicate the statement of claim | Section 25(a) | Proceedings terminated — mandatory, absent sufficient cause. |
| Respondent fails to communicate the statement of defence | Section 25(b) | Proceedings continue; failure is not an admission; tribunal may treat the right to file the defence as forfeited (2015 amendment). |
| Any party fails to appear at hearing or produce evidence | Section 25(c) | Tribunal may continue and make the award on the evidence before it. |
The design is deliberately asymmetric. The claimant’s default kills the reference because without a claim there is nothing to try. The respondent’s default does not hand the claimant a decree — unlike a civil court’s power to pronounce judgment on a deemed admission, the tribunal must still be persuaded by evidence. What the respondent loses is participation at the pleading stage; what it keeps, if it reappears, is whatever the tribunal in its discretion still permits.
The boycott mistake
The most expensive strategic error in arbitration practice remains the principled boycott: a respondent convinced that the clause is invalid, the arbitrator biased or the claims barred, who registers a protest and withdraws. Section 25(c) means the proceedings simply continue; Section 16 means jurisdictional objections not raised within the statutory stages risk being lost; and the eventual ex parte award meets the respondent at the Section 34 stage, where the grounds are narrow and the boycott itself undermines the plea of inability to present a case. The correct course for a party with jurisdictional objections is to raise them before the tribunal under Section 16, participate under protest, and preserve every objection on the record — attendance is not acquiescence.
For the party in the room
For the party tempted to stay away
File something: even a skeletal defence preserved by the tribunal’s indulgence is worth more than the forfeiture Section 25(b) now permits.
If a hearing is genuinely impossible to attend, seek an adjournment in writing, in advance, with cause — tribunals distinguish sharply between explained absence and abandonment.
Jurisdictional convictions belong in a Section 16 application, not in an empty chair; losing the application still preserves the objection for the Section 34 stage.
After an ex parte award, act immediately: the three-month window under Section 34(3), extendable by thirty days at most, is unforgiving, and enforcement under Section 36 follows swiftly once it closes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if the claimant does not file the statement of claim?
Under Section 25(a), if the claimant fails to communicate the statement of claim in accordance with Section 23(1) without sufficient cause, the tribunal shall terminate the proceedings. The claim dies procedurally — though the underlying cause of action is not adjudicated, so the claimant’s position on limitation for any fresh attempt becomes the real casualty.
And if the respondent files no defence?
Section 25(b): the tribunal continues the proceedings without treating the failure as an admission of the claimant’s allegations — and, since the 2015 amendment, has the discretion to treat the respondent’s right to file the statement of defence as forfeited. The claimant must still prove its case; silence concedes nothing, but the respondent loses the pleading through which it would have contested it.
Can the tribunal pass an award if a party stops appearing?
Yes. Under Section 25(c), where a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the award on the evidence before it. An ex parte award so made is a real award — enforceable under Section 36 like any other once the challenge window closes.
Can a defaulting party come back?
The gate is "sufficient cause": a tribunal satisfied that the default is explained can accept late pleadings or recall the ex parte procedure for the future stages. After the award, the only route is a challenge under Section 34 on its limited grounds — including that the party was unable to present its case — which demands a genuine explanation, not a boycott repented of after the result.