MOHAN LAL FATEHPURIA versus M/S BHARAT TEXTILES & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 10-12-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 408 : 2025 INSC 1409
Mohan Lal Fatehpuria 
v. 
M/s Bharat Textiles & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14681 of 2025)
10 December 2025
[Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by 
the High Court declining substitution of a sole arbitrator, however, 
extending his mandate u/s.29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation 
Act, 1996.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(6) – Substitution 
of a sole arbitrator – On facts, the sole arbitrator issued 
directions requiring the parties to deposit the administrative 
expenses – Appellants sought time, in an arbitral proceeding, 
to move an application before the High Court u/s.29A(4) – 
Thereupon, the sole arbitrator adjourned the proceeding 
sine die – Appellants then filed petitions u/s. 29A(6) seeking 
substitution of the sole arbitrator and extension of tenure for 
the substitute arbitrator – High Court declined substitution of 
a sole arbitrator, however extended his mandate u/s.29A(6) 
for a further period – Correctness:
Held: Substitution of a sole arbitrator is warranted, when his 
mandate ceases to exist, to effectuate the object of the Act, which 
mandates expeditious resolution of the dispute – In view of mandate 
contained in s.29A(1), the sole Arbitrator was under an obligation 
to pass an award within a period of one year from 01.03.2022, 
i.e. on or before 28.02.2023 – However, the sole Arbitrator failed 
to do so – Parties did not apply for extension of period to pass an 
award – Sole arbitrator in view of mandate contained in s.29A(4) 
became functus officio – Mandate of the sole Arbitrator terminated 
on 28.02.2023 – When mandate of arbitrator has expired, his 
continuation is impermissible – s.29A(6) empowers and obligates 
* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 
409
Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. M/s Bharat Textiles & Ors.
the Court to substitute the Arbitrator – In view thereof, the case 
warranted the exercise of jurisdiction u/s.29A(6) – High Court erred 
in granting an extension when the mandate of the sole arbitrator 
had ceased to exist – Impugned order quashed and set aside – 
Mandate of sole arbitrator terminated by operation of law – Former 
Judge of the High Court appointed as the substituted sole arbitrator. 
[Paras 11, 13, 14]
Case Law Cited
Tata Sons Pvt. Limited v. Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. & Ors. 
[2023] 9 SCR 1268 : (2023) 5 SCC 421; Cognizance for Extension 
of Limitation, In Re (2022) 3 SCC 117; Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. 
Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. [2024] 9 SCR 473 : 2024 SCC 
OnLine SC 2494 – referred to.
List of Acts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
List of Keywords
Substitution of sole arbitrator; Time limit for arbitral award; Deposit 
administrative expenses; Tenure for the substitute arbitrator.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14681 of  
2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2025 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in O.M.P.(MISC)(COMM.) No. 34 of 2024
With
Civil Appeal No. 14682 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Pradeep Aggarwal, Lal Pratap Singh, Umesh Pratap Singh, Arjun 
Aggarwal, Sahil Gupta, Vishal Singh, Aman Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
S. C. Singhal, Padam Kant Saxena, Ms. Megha Gaur, Parmanand 
Gaur.
410
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Alok Aradhe, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
These appeals are filed against an order dated 22.04.2025 by Delhi 
High Court by which it has declined substitution of a sole arbitrator 
but has extended his mandate under Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’) for 
a further period of four months.
FACTS
3.	
The appellants who are husband and wife, along with respondent 
nos. 2 to 4 executed a partnership deed dated 18.05.1992 which 
contained an arbitration clause. M/s. Bharat Textiles namely, 
respondent no.1, was registered on 05.01.2007 as a partnership 
firm. Upon disputes having arisen, the High Court by a common 
order dated 13.03.2020, passed in two arbitration petitions filed 
by the appellants, appointed Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate as a sole 
arbitrator. The High Court directed that a sole arbitrator shall be 
entitled to fee as per the Fourth Schedule to the Act.
4.	
The sole arbitrator entered the reference on 20.05.2020. He thereafter 
issued various directions on 03.06.2020, 21.10.2020, 09.01.202

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.