Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay (Retd.) Appointed Following Withdrawal of Previous Arbitrator Due to Procedural Delays
In a landmark judgment delivered on April 27, 2026, the Calcutta High Court has reinforced the pro-arbitration approach by appointing a substitute arbitrator to ensure the continuity of the arbitral process in the case of MIPL DRAIPL JV v. Eastern Railway. The court, presided over by Justice Gaurang Kanth, addressed the petition filed by MIPL DRAIPL JV under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following the withdrawal of the previously appointed Sole Arbitrator, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tapan Kumar Dutt (Retd.).
The dispute originated from a contract awarded to MIPL DRAIPL JV for construction work related to railway bridges, which was terminated by the Eastern Railway in 2017. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in 2019, and after failing to agree on an arbitrator, the Calcutta High Court appointed Mr. Justice Dutt in 2021. However, due to financial constraints and procedural lapses, the arbitration process was delayed, leading to the withdrawal of Justice Dutt in 2025.
Addressing arguments from both parties, Justice Kanth emphasized that procedural delays should not impede substantive rights or the resolution of disputes through arbitration. The court noted that the petitioner had consistently demonstrated an intention to pursue arbitration, despite delays, and ruled that the appointment of a substitute arbitrator was necessary to uphold the integrity of the arbitral process.
Justice Kanth dismissed the respondent's contention that the petition was barred by limitation, clarifying that the cause of action for substitution arose with the withdrawal of the arbitrator. The judgment underscored the importance of continuity in arbitration and the court's role in facilitating dispute resolution.
Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay (Retd.) has been appointed as the new Sole Arbitrator and will proceed with the arbitration from the stage prior to the withdrawal of Justice Dutt. This decision reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to supporting arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism.
Bottom line:-
Appointment of a substitute arbitrator under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is permissible to ensure continuity of the arbitral process, even in cases of procedural delay, provided no clear intention of abandonment is established.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 14, 15, 21, 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
MIPL DRAIPL JV v. Eastern Railway, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2889602
