Arbitrator mandate termination must be decided under section 14, not through section 11(6), when appointment was by mutual consent.

A controversy that a sole arbitrator's mandate had terminated for failure to act without undue delay falls within section 14(1)(a) read with section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and must be decided by the court under that provision. Where the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent, section 11(6) cannot be invoked again to secure replacement on the basis of alleged delay, so the fresh appointment order was set aside. At the threshold, an Order VII Rule 11 challenge could not succeed because the pleaded case under section 14 had to be examined on its merits; the refusal to reject those proceedings was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable to terminate the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent, and whether a controversy regarding termination of mandate on the ground of undue delay under section 14(1)(a) had to be raised before the court under section 14(2); (ii) Whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the section 14 proceedings was rightly dismissed.

Issue (i): Whether an application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable to terminate the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent, and whether a controversy regarding termination of mandate on the ground of undue delay under section 14(1)(a) had to be raised before the court under section 14(2).

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between appointment under section 11(5) and section 11(6). Where parties have not agreed in writing on an appointment procedure, and the dispute is referred to arbitration by mutual consent, section 11(5) applies if appointment fails. Section 11(6) applies where there is a written arbitration agreement and an agreed appointment procedure, and one of the specified contingencies occurs. A dispute that the mandate of an arbitrator has terminated because the arbitrator has become de jure or de facto unable to act, or has failed to act without undue delay, is governed by section 14(1)(a) read with section 14(2), and such controversy must be decided by the court defined in section 2(e). Once an arbitrator has been appointed by mutual consent, the arbitration agreement cannot be invoked again through section 11(6) to replace that arbitrator on the basis of alleged delay.

Conclusion: The application under section 11(6) was not maintainable, and the controversy regarding termination of the sole arbitrator's mandate had to be adjudicated by the court under section 14(2), not under section 11(6). The High Court's contrary view was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the section 14 proceedings was rightly dismissed.

Analysis: At the stage of Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the application or plaint are relevant. The contention that there was no undue delay on the part of the arbitrator was a defence going to the merits of the controversy under section 14(2), and it could not justify rejection of the proceedings at the threshold. The trial court therefore confined itself correctly to the pleadings before it.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 was correct and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order appointing a fresh arbitrator and terminating the mandate under section 11(6) was quashed, while the orders refusing to reject the section 14 proceedings at the threshold were sustained. The matter concerning termination of the arbitrator's mandate was directed to be decided in the proper forum under section 14(2).

Ratio Decidendi: A controversy over termination of an arbitrator's mandate on the ground of failure to act without undue delay must be decided by the court under section 14(2), and not in proceedings under section 11(6), especially where the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent and not under a written appointment procedure governed by section 11(6).

---