Arbitrator mandate expiry and substitute appointment must respect mutual consent and impartiality safeguards under arbitration law.

Where the arbitration agreement allowed extension of time only by mutual consent, the arbitrator's mandate ended on expiry of the agreed period when no consent or extension application was made, and the arbitrator became functus officio. The Supreme Court also noted that any substitute appointment under Section 11(6) must comply with Section 11(8) by giving due regard to the qualifications in the agreement and the need for an independent and impartial arbitrator. On that basis, the termination of the original mandate was upheld, while the substitute appointment was set aside for fresh consideration by the High Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mandate of the arbitrator had validly terminated on expiry of the time fixed by the parties for making and publishing the award. (ii) Whether the appointment of the substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 required fresh consideration in the light of Section 11(8) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the mandate of the arbitrator had validly terminated on expiry of the time fixed by the parties for making and publishing the award.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement permitted enlargement of time only by mutual consent of the parties. The time fixed for making and publishing the award expired without further consent, and no application for extension was made by either side before the expiry. In these circumstances, the arbitrator could not unilaterally continue and became functus officio after the stipulated period. The High Court was therefore justified in treating the mandate as terminated under the statutory scheme governing failure or inability to act without undue delay.

Conclusion: The termination of the arbitrator's mandate was upheld and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointment of the substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 required fresh consideration in the light of Section 11(8) of the Act.

Analysis: While a substitute arbitrator could be appointed after termination of the earlier mandate, the appointment process had to comply with the statutory requirement that due regard be had to the qualifications required by the agreement and other considerations for securing an independent and impartial arbitrator. The High Court's appointment order did not adequately address this requirement. Therefore, the matter relating to appointment under Section 11(6) required reconsideration by the High Court.

Conclusion: The appointment order was set aside and the application for appointment of an arbitrator was remitted to the High Court for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The judgment sustained the finding that the original arbitrator's mandate had come to an end, but the substitute appointment was reopened for fresh consideration under the statutory safeguards governing arbitral appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration agreement makes extension of time dependent on mutual consent, the arbitrator cannot continue after expiry of the agreed period without such consent, and any fresh appointment under Section 11 must conform to the requirement of due regard to the agreement's qualifications and impartiality safeguards.

---