Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 03 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Chenab Machinery and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., represented by Director Vijay Aggarwal; Respondent – Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, represented by its CEO.
  • Arbitration Background: Dispute arose from a contract to manufacture, supply, erect, test and complete a 2 km modular shelter shed on the Tarakote Marg of the Shrine. Arbitration Petition No. 14/2022 was filed; sole arbitrator appointed on 10 Nov 2023.
  • Procedural History:
  • Petitioner filed statement of claim in June 2024; respondent filed statement of defence in September 2024.
  • On 17 Aug 2024 the arbitrator refused to record the presence of the petitioner's counsel’s colleague, citing lack of Vakalatnama, and did not disclose the next hearing date.
  • Subsequent hearing dates (21 Sep, 28 Sep, 5 Oct 2024) saw the petitioner absent; the arbitrator issued a termination order under Section 32(2)(c) on 5 Oct 2024, communicated on 17 Oct 2024.
  • Petitioner attempted to recall the termination order via email; the arbitrator did not respond.
  • Respondent’s Contentions: Arbitral tribunal acted under Section 32(2)(c) due to petitioner’s three consecutive absences; termination was automatic by operation of law; remedy lies in court challenge under Section 14(2).
  • Legal Reasoning by the Court:
  • Cited Dani Wooltex Corp. v. Sheil Properties (2024) interpreting Section 32(2)(c) and Section 25, emphasizing that termination requires a finding of abandonment or impossibility, not merely procedural default.
  • Noted that both parties had filed their statements, and no abandonment by petitioner was established; therefore the arbitrator’s termination was unsustainable.
  • Referred to Harshbir Singh Pannu v. Jaswinder Singh (2025) outlining the hierarchy of termination provisions, the power to recall a termination order, and the appropriate remedial pathway (recall before arbitrator, then court under Section 14(2) if necessary).
  • Court’s Decision:
  • Set aside the arbitrator’s termination order dated 05 Oct 2024.
  • Since the arbitrator failed to consider the petitioner's recall application and the respondent consented to a substitute, the court terminated the earlier arbitrator’s mandate and appointed Sh. Shobha Ram Gandhi, former District and Sessions Judge, as the substitute sole arbitrator.
  • Directed the registry to inform the former arbitrator of the appointment.

Final Outcome

  • The termination order of the original sole arbitrator is nullified.
  • Sh. Shobha Ram Gandhi is appointed as the new sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.
  • The matter is remitted to the arbitration process under the substitute arbitrator.

Topics: Arbitration, Court Order