Substitute arbitrator appointment upheld where consent terms did not exclude vacancy-filling after resignation.

Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits substitution of a resigned arbitrator by applying the same appointment rules that governed the original appointment. The term "rules" includes the arbitration agreement itself, so the clause must be read to see whether substitution is expressly or impliedly excluded. Where consent terms merely named an arbitrator and did not bar a vacancy being filled, and the original appointment had been made by the court under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same appointing authority could appoint a replacement. Continuity of the arbitral process was therefore upheld, and a substitute arbitrator was validly appointable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the named arbitrator resigned, a substitute arbitrator could be appointed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the consent terms did not expressly provide for substitution.

Analysis: Section 15(2) requires a substitute arbitrator to be appointed according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. The expression "rules" includes the arbitration agreement itself, and the clause must be construed to see whether it expressly or by necessary implication excludes substitution. Where the agreement merely names an arbitrator without showing that the vacancy should not be supplied, and where the appointment was made by the court in a suit referred to arbitration under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the same appointing authority may appoint a replacement. The scheme of the Act, supported by the earlier decisions on substitution, favors continuity of the arbitral process unless the agreement clearly prohibits it.

Conclusion: A substitute arbitrator was validly appointable; the appeal failed.

---