Termination Is Not Re-Appointment - Analysing The Misuse Of Section 14 & 15 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1966
- IJLLR Journal
- Jan 5
- 1 min read
Sadhvi
ABSTRACT
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is made to promote efficient, final, speedy, and minimal judicial intervention so that justice is secured to all. Presently, many litigants are invoking sections 14 and 15 for the revival of an arbitrator’s mandate that has been terminated lawfully. While such applications blur out the distinction between substitution and reinstatement of arbitrator courts have often declared the difference between the terminologies. This article critically examines the legislative intent and framework behind sections 14 and 15, and 32 of the Act, emphasizing judicial interpretations of these provisions. This article stipulates that the Act does not talk about reinstatement of an arbitrator’s mandate once lawfully ceased. It further states that while courts may examine the legality of termination under Section 14(2), such power does not extend to restoring arbitral mandates or proceedings. This article concludes by emphasizing the need for judicial restraint, limitation, and statutory fidelity to preserve arbitral autonomy and procedural finality.
