When Silence Kills the Claim: Bombay High Court Clarifies the Distinction Between Terminating an Arbitrator’s Mandate and the Abandonment of Arbitral Proceedings After a Nine-Year Delay.

🔒 For Members Only

Case: SUPAMA REALTORS LLP AND ORS v. MULCHAND KALUCHAND RANKA
Court: Bombay High Court
Date: 08-05-2026
Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Full Judgment → MCQ Test →

In the fast-paced world of commercial dispute resolution, arbitration is often championed as the efficient alternative to the "law's delay". But what happens when an arbitration reference simply goes silent? Can a party wake a sleeping case after nearly a decade of inactivity by simply asking for a new arbitrator? A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court in Supama Realtors LLP v. Mulchand Kaluchand Ranka provides a masterclass on the "doctrine of abandonment" and the critical distinction between a frustrated arbitrator and a dead case.

The "Endeavour" is Not a Deadline

One of the most common points of friction in Indian arbitration is the timeline for passing an award. In this case, the original 2014 court order stated that the arbitrator "shall endeavour" to pass an award within nine months. The Applicants argued that because this was merely an "endeavour", the mandate never expired, and the proceedings remained alive indefinitely.

The Court agreed that the word "endeavour" is directory, not mandatory. It does not act as a jurisdictional guillotine. However, the Court clarified that while a directory timeline prevents automatic termination, it does not grant the parties a license for infinite lethargy.

"Mere direction for making an endeavour to complete arbitral proceedings in specified time does not tantamount to issuance of positive direction resulting in a consequence for not following the same."

The Crucial Distinction: Mandate vs. Proceedings

Perhaps the most sophisticated takeaway from Justice Sandeep V. Marne’s analysis is the surgical distinction between the termination of an arbitrator’s mandate (Sections 14 and 15) and the termination of the arbitral proceedings themselves (Section 32). This is not mere semantics; it is a fundamental jurisdictional hurdle.

If an arbitrator becomes too old or fails to act, their individual "mandate" ends, but the "proceedings" survive, allowing a court to substitute a new person. However, if the proceedings are terminated under Section 32—because they have become "unnecessary or impossible"—there is no longer a vacancy to fill. You cannot appoint a new captain to a ship that has already been scuttled.

When Silence Amounts to Abandonment

The most counter-intuitive aspect of the judgment lies in how the Court interprets a nine-year hiatus. Generally, Indian courts are hesitant to infer that a party has "abandoned" its legal rights. Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Dani Wooltex Corporation, the Applicants argued that abandonment cannot be lightly inferred from mere delay.

The Court, however, drew a sharp line. While a "failure to seek a date" might be excusable, a total absence of communication for nine years—without even a single letter to the arbitrator inquiring about the status of the case—leads to an "inescapable conclusion" of abandonment. The Court found it "incomprehensible" that settlement talks could justify nearly a decade of total silence without any formal update to the tribunal.

Substitution is Not Resurrection

The judgment serves as a stern warning to litigants who treat arbitration as a "parked" proceeding. The Applicants sought to use Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators) to revive the case. The Court’s response was a firm "No".

"Since arbitral proceedings are terminated under the provisions of Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act, this Court is unable to substitute the arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 11 or under Section 14."

Ultimately, this ruling reinforces the principle that the Court’s power to substitute an arbitrator is contingent upon the continued existence of a live reference. Once the conduct of the parties demonstrates that the proceedings have been abandoned, the legal "ghost" cannot be brought back to life through a substitution application. It is a reminder that in the eyes of the law, some silences are loud enough to end a case forever.