{"id":375543,"date":"2026-02-12T15:00:15","date_gmt":"2026-02-12T09:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=375543"},"modified":"2026-02-17T16:26:11","modified_gmt":"2026-02-17T10:56:11","slug":"sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal arising from the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s interim order dated 02-12-2025 where in the Court declared the mandate of the existing Arbitrator in the ongoing arbitration proceedings between the parties to be terminated and directed the parties to propose the name of a new Arbitrator for appointment, a Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ., set aside the impugned order and held that Section 29-A<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (A&C Act) does not mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator.<\/p>\n

The High Court relied upon Mohan Lal Fatehpuria<\/span> v. Bharat Textiles<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2754<\/a>, while interpreting Section 29-A(6)<\/a> of the A&C Act<\/a> and termination of the Arbitrator’s mandate and directed substitution of the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the termination of the Arbitrator’s mandate and the direction for substitution, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that “the impugned interim order has been passed by the High Court on a misinterpretation of the ratio of the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria<\/span> (Supra).” It was noted that in paragraph 13 of Mohan Lal Fatehpuria<\/span> (Supra), while dealing with Section 29-A(6), it was held that the provision “empowers and obligates the Court to substitute an Arbitrator.” The High Court construed the word “obligates” as mandating substitution in every case where the mandate stands terminated.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that when the expression “obligates” was used, “it only meant that a substitute Arbitrator would be appointed if the situation so warranted.” It is “not an inference which would necessarily follow the mandate of the Arbitrator standing terminated under Section 29-A(4)<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

The Court relied upon C. Velusamy<\/span> v. K. Indhera<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 142<\/a>, wherein it was clarified that Mohan Lal Fatehpuria<\/span> (Supra) “does not mandate the substitution of an Arbitrator as an inevitable consequence, when the Court is considering the extension of mandate that has already expired.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court further referenced to Jagdeep Chowgule<\/span> v. Sheela Chowgule<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 124<\/a>, which held that “Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a> will have no bearing on the working of the provisions of Chapter 5 and 6, wherein Section 29-A is located.”<\/span><\/p>\n

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court held that the application for extension of time under Section 29-A(4) did not lie before the High Court. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 02-12-2025 passed by the High Court.<\/p>\n

The Court directed the application which had been disposed of by the Commercial Court, Bhopal to “stand revived”. It further directed the Commercial Court to decide the application seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator expeditiously.<\/p>\n

However, the Court clarified that it had “not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator which shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Commercial Court.”<\/span><\/p>\n

[Viva Highways Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 195<\/a>, Decided on 06-02-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR, Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Chetna Alagh, and Mr. Mayank Biyani, Counsel for the Petitioner<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The impugned interim order has been passed by the High Court on a misinterpretation of the ratio of the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria (supra).”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":375547,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[10131,98719,98720,30168,57697,98718,86737,5363,72750],"class_list":["post-375543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-extension-of-arbitrator-mandate","tag-interpretation-of-section-29-a","tag-justice-alok-aradhe","tag-justice-sanjay-kumar","tag-section-29-a","tag-substitution-of-arbitrator","tag-supreme-court","tag-termination-of-arbitrator"],"yoast_head":"\nSC: Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act doesn\u2019t mandate automatic Arbitrator substitution | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of mandate.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of mandate.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-12T09:30:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-17T10:56:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"headline\":\"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-12T09:30:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-17T10:56:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":539,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"arbitration and conciliation act\",\"Extension of Arbitrator Mandate\",\"Interpretation of Section 29-A\",\"Justice Alok Aradhe\",\"Justice Sanjay Kumar\",\"Section 29-A\",\"Substitution of arbitrator\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Termination of Arbitrator\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC: Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act doesn\u2019t mandate automatic Arbitrator substitution | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-12T09:30:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-17T10:56:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court held that Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of mandate.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/12\\\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_7\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC: Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act doesn\u2019t mandate automatic Arbitrator substitution | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court held that Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of mandate.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate","og_description":"Supreme Court held that Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of mandate.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-12T09:30:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-17T10:56:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/"},"author":{"name":"Ritu","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"headline":"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate","datePublished":"2026-02-12T09:30:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-17T10:56:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/"},"wordCount":539,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp","keywords":["arbitration and conciliation act","Extension of Arbitrator Mandate","Interpretation of Section 29-A","Justice Alok Aradhe","Justice Sanjay Kumar","Section 29-A","Substitution of arbitrator","Supreme Court","Termination of Arbitrator"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/","name":"SC: Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act doesn\u2019t mandate automatic Arbitrator substitution | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-12T09:30:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-17T10:56:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Supreme Court held that Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon termination of mandate.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/12\/sc-section-29-a-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitrator-substitution\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Section 29-A doesn\u2019t mandate automatic substitution of Arbitrator; Supreme Court set asides order terminating mandate"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-29-A-of-Arbitration-and-Conciliation.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":306874,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/09\/supreme-court-stays-cal-hc-order-restricting-application-filed-s-29a4-arbitration-act-after-expiry-term-of-tribunal\/","url_meta":{"origin":375543,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order which restricted application filed under S.29A(4) of Arbitration Act after expiry of term of the Tribunal","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court issued notice in the present SLP and tagged it with SLP titled Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"application under S.29A","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/application-under-S.29A.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":323372,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/01\/will-arbitration-proceedings-survive-if-mandate-of-arbitrator-is-terminated-dhc-answers-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":375543,"position":1},"title":"Will arbitration proceedings survive if mandate of arbitrator is terminated? Delhi HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"June 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe arbitral proceedings in the matter were not terminated but the Arbitrator had been non-responsive and was unable to perform his functions. Thus, as per Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the present case is suited for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator for adjudicating the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325875,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/06\/arbitration-round-up-june-2024-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":375543,"position":2},"title":"Arbitration Roundup June 2024; Update yourself with all the latest Arbitration law updates in June 2024","author":"Editor","date":"July 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA quick recap of the latest rulings by the Supreme Court and High Courts- From the mandate of the arbitrator to the challenge of award passed by arbitrator\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Latest Arbitration laws June 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":373984,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/29\/resolving-jurisdictional-conundrum-section-29a-arbitration-conciliation-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":375543,"position":3},"title":"Resolving the Jurisdictional Conundrum: Unpacking Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"January 29, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kartikey Bhatt* and Tanish Arora**","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Section 29A Arbitration Act jurisdiction","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/blog-2026-02-03T175747.421.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/blog-2026-02-03T175747.421.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/blog-2026-02-03T175747.421.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/blog-2026-02-03T175747.421.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":156334,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/13\/mandate-of-arbitrator-to-be-terminated-if-there-is-undue-delay-in-dispute-resolution-process\/","url_meta":{"origin":375543,"position":4},"title":"Mandate of Arbitrator to be terminated if there is undue delay in dispute resolution process","author":"Saba","date":"September 13, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: In three separate writ petitions, the termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator and the appointment of a new arbitrator was allowed by the Court. The main question before the Court was whether the mandate of an Arbitrator can be terminated and a new arbitrator be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":301383,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/13\/rajasthan-hc-seat-of-arbitration-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-for-applications-filed-u-s-11-of-the-ac-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":375543,"position":5},"title":"Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u\/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Court observes that the \u2018contrary indicia\u2019 is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rajasthan high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375543","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=375543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375543\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/375547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=375543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=375543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=375543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}