Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.02.2026
M/S FOOD INN NOW KNOWN AS MS HOTEL SIGNATURE INN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Advocate.
LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Harsh Kaushik and Ms. Adrija Mishra, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[1] seeking the appointment of a substituted Arbitrator.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents would strongly object to the same, placing reliance upon the judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Chawla and Co. Stock and Share Brokers v. Nine Media and Information Services Ltd. and The Act Another[2] and in particular Paragraphs 14 and 16 thereof, which reads as follows:
3. He also submits that, against Raj Chawla (supra) a Special Leave Petition came to be preferred, which was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further places reliance upon paragraph 14 of the aforestated judgment and contends that in the absence of any extension having been sought or granted in terms of Section 29A of the Act, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal stood terminated and the proceedings ought to have been brought to an end in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
4. In view of Paragraph 16 of Raj Chawla (supra), it is urged that there is, as on date, no subsisting Arbitral Tribunal and, consequently, 2023 SCC Online Del 520 no arbitral proceedings in existence. In such circumstances, it is contended that a petition under Section 15 of the Act seeking substitution of an Arbitrator would not be maintainable.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court titled EMCO Limited v. Delhi Transco Limited[3] to contend that mere delay in filing the statement of claim does not ipso facto result in termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and that the Court ought to adopt a pro-arbitration approach.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further seeks to controvert the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Respondents by submitting that, in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act, there ought to have been a determination by the learned Arbitrator of the timeline for filing of the statement of claim. He submits that no such direction fixing the time period for filing of the statement of claim was passed by the learned Arbitrator, which, according to him, is the reason the statement of claim was not filed for over a period of two years.
7. He further submits that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has not terminated, as the present situation does not fall within the ambit of Section 32 of the Act. In the absence of any such termination in terms of the said provision, the proceedings cannot be said to have come to an end.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the certain provisions of the Act were not considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court while passing Judgment in Raj Chawla (supra).
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and is of 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6306 the considered view that the judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case and operates in full force in the present proceedings.
10. As a result, there is no substance in the present petition, and prayer as sought for by the Petitioner cannot be granted.
11. Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 19, 2026/tk/her