Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39565 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 72 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S R. R. Engineers And Contractors, Through Its Proprietor, Rumneek Singh Opposite Party :- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl), Through Chief Engineer (E), (Engineer-In-Charge) Counsel for Applicant :- Suryansh Narula Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act of 1996') seeking a relief for appointment of a substituted Arbitrator. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier in furtherance of the disputes which had occurred between the petitioner and the respondent, a reference was made to the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator and referred the disputes for its resolution before the Arbitral Tribunal. In furtherance thereof, Shri D.K. Vaish, Retd., G.M., Development, U.P. (E), Circle, Lucknow was appointed as a sole arbitrator by means of the letter dated 28.02.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that since the appointment of the sole Arbitrator, he is not proceeding in the matter and despite the letters addressed to the sole Arbitrator for furnishing arbitration schedule, relating to the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted as well as the procedure to be adopted, yet there has been no response from the said Arbitrator and in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner by means of its letter dated 26 March 2025, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.15, addressed to the Arbitrator requesting him to commence the arbitration proceedings, however, there has been no response. It is urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Act may appoint a substitute Arbitrator. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and the material available on record, it will be worthwhile to reproduce the prayer made by the petitioner:- "In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and submissions made hereinabove, the petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: A. Appoint a Substitute Sole Arbitrator and refer the aforementioned dispute to Arbitration for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the parties; B. Pass any other order(s), direction(s) as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." The record indicates that as of today, the arbitral Tribunal comprising of sole Arbitrator has already seized with the matter. It may be the different issue that the arbitral Tribunal has not responded to the letters written by the petitioner or it may not have proceeded with due diligence and expedition but then that is a question which is to be considered in terms of under Section 14 of the Act of 1996. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent agrees to appointment of a substitute Arbitrator. The issue relating to appointment of a substitute Arbitrator is the subject matter of Section 15 of the Act of 1996. There is a clear distinction between the interplay of Section 14 and 15 of the Act of 1996. In the given case, the mandate of the Arbitrator has not yet terminated nor the parties have terminated the mandate of the arbitral Tribunal. That being so, if there is controversy relating to the termination of the mandate, it is to be considered by the appropriate Court as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1996, however, this Court without the mandate of the arbitrator terminated, on its own cannot enter into the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. Moreover, even if the mandate is terminated, the parties are required to follow the said procedure rules as provided in terms of Section 15 of the Act of 1996, as was applicable for the constitution of the arbitral Tribunal, in the first place. Admittedly, no notice is on record, hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the petition, at this stage, is premature and misconceived. Accordingly, it is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to it in law. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench