Arbitrations stall for many reasons — an arbitrator resigns, becomes unable to act, or the mandate is said to have terminated. The procedural reflex is often to rush back to the High Court that appointed the arbitrator. Union of India v. M/s Food King Impex Pvt Ltd, O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 65/2026, decided by the Delhi High Court on 27 October 2026, is a short order with a precise message: a petition under Section 14(1) read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not a fresh appointment petition under Section 11 — it belongs to the “Court” defined in Section 2(1)(e), and pecuniary jurisdiction decides which court that is.
The problem the order addresses
When an arbitrator’s mandate is said to have ended — through inability, withdrawal, or a controversy over de jure or de facto incapacity under Section 14(1)(a) — two questions arise: who decides that the mandate has terminated, and who appoints the substitute under Section 15(2)? Parties frequently assume the answer is the High Court, particularly where the High Court made the original appointment under Section 11. The assumption is wrong, and it costs time.
The Court’s reasoning
Justice Om Prakash Shukla anchored the order in the Supreme Court’s decision in Swadesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, which separates the statutory tracks: Section 11 is a designated-authority power to constitute a tribunal; a dispute over termination of the mandate under Section 14(1)(a) must be raised before the “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. That definition points to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction — and to a High Court only where it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction over the subject matter, which in Delhi depends on the specified value of the dispute.
Here the claims were valued at roughly Rs 24 lakh — below the High Court’s pecuniary threshold. The Court also cited a coordinate Bench ruling in NHAI v. Third Rock Consultants, where a petition involving a claim of about Rs 32 lakh was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Counsel for the Union, sensibly, sought leave to withdraw with liberty to approach the proper forum; the Court granted both, dismissing the petition as withdrawn.
Mapping the forums
| Application | Forum in a Delhi-seated domestic arbitration |
|---|---|
| Section 11 — appointment of arbitrator | High Court (as designated authority), regardless of claim value. |
| Section 14/15 — mandate termination and substitution | The Section 2(1)(e) “Court”: the district commercial court, unless the specified value brings it within the High Court’s ordinary original civil jurisdiction. |
| Section 29A — extension of mandate | Same Section 2(1)(e) analysis, as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in South Bihar Power Distribution (2026 INSC 1165). |
| Section 34 — setting aside the award | Same Section 2(1)(e) analysis, by specified value. |
Why it matters
A substitution petition filed in the wrong court does not merely bounce — it consumes months in a proceeding where the arbitration is already stalled, and limitation and mandate-expiry clocks may be running in the background. Before filing anything that invokes the word “Court” in the 1996 Act, counsel should run the Section 2(1)(e) analysis against the specified value of the claims, and remember that the High Court’s role under Section 11 does not make it the supervisory court for every later application in the same arbitration.
The order is brief, but it joins a consistent line of Delhi authority policing the boundary — and for arbitrations with modest claim values, the message is uniform: the district commercial court is the supervisory court.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the petition before the Delhi High Court?
The Union of India sought the appointment of a substitute arbitrator under Section 14(1) read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The claims in the underlying arbitration were valued at roughly Rs 24 lakh, which the Court noted appeared to fall below the Delhi High Court’s pecuniary threshold for original commercial jurisdiction.
Why does a Section 14/15 petition go to a different forum than Section 11?
Section 11 appointment powers are conferred on the High Court (or Supreme Court) as designated authorities. But a controversy over whether an arbitrator’s mandate stands terminated under Section 14(1)(a), and the consequent substitution under Section 15(2), must be decided by the “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e) — the principal civil court or, where applicable, the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Swadesh Kumar Aggarwal, which distinguishes the two tracks.
What happened to the petition?
Faced with the jurisdictional difficulty — and a coordinate Bench precedent in NHAI v. Third Rock Consultants, where a claim of about Rs 32 lakh met the same fate — counsel for the Union sought leave to withdraw with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The Court granted leave and liberty, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
What is the practical rule for Delhi arbitrations?
Value the claims first. If the specified value places the matter below the Delhi High Court’s ordinary original civil jurisdiction, applications that go to the Section 2(1)(e) “Court” — mandate termination, substitution, Section 29A extensions, Section 34 challenges — belong before the commercial court in the district, not the High Court.