- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Singh & Associates represent Vikram Solar Ltd. in Delhi High Court seeking termination of mandate of an arbitrator
[ by Kavita Krishnan ]Vikram Solar Limited (Vikram Solar), one of the largest solar energy companies in India, approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking termination of mandate of an arbitrator and substitution of the same by a new arbitrator.In this matter, certain disputes/differences arose between Vikram Solar Limited and IIC Limited. Vikram Solar invoked arbitration against...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Vikram Solar Limited (Vikram Solar), one of the largest solar energy companies in India, approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking termination of mandate of an arbitrator and substitution of the same by a new arbitrator.
In this matter, certain disputes/differences arose between Vikram Solar Limited and IIC Limited. Vikram Solar invoked arbitration against IIC Limited. Pursuant thereto, an arbitrator was appointed by IIC Limited in June 2017. However, the said appointed arbitrator did not initiate arbitration proceedings even after a lapse of more than two years.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction on the part of the arbitrator, Vikram Solar approached Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in September 2019 for terminating the mandate of the Arbitrator and substitution of the arbitrator by appointing an independent and impartial arbitrator.
Vikram Solar was represented by Mr. Manoj K Singh, Founding Partner, Singh & Associates before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Mr. Singh argued before the Court that as the learned Arbitrator has failed to act for the last two years, his mandate be terminated. He further argued that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the petition under Section 14 and 15 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (Act of 1996) can appoint a substitute Arbitrator by terminating the mandate of the earlier Arbitrator.
Mr. Singh stated that in case an Arbitrator fails to proceed with the arbitration, a party shall be justified in approaching the Court seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator on the ground that he has failed to act without undue delay thereby invoking Section 14(1) of the Act of 1996.
The Hon’ble Court appreciated the arguments advanced by Mr. Singh on behalf of Vikram Solar. The Hon’ble Court observed that “Mr. Manoj Singh is right in contending that in the absence of any communication from the learned Arbitrator, the Petitioner could not have filed the claim petition”.
The Delhi High Court relying on the International Engineers and Project Consultants Limited (IEPC) v. Union of India & Anr considered the petition under Section 14 and 15 of the Act of 1996 and terminated the mandate of the earlier Arbitrator to appoint substitute Arbitrator in his place.
The Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 07th November, 2019 terminated the mandate of the earlier arbitrator and appointed Mr. Justice D.K. Jain (Retd. Judge, Supreme Court of India) to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
One of the primary objectives of the arbitration is to provide speedy remedy to the parties. In this matter, the arbitrator did not initiate any proceedings even after a lapse of more than two years from his appointment. Therefore, it was utmost important to approach the Court for termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and substitution of the same with a new arbitrator.