$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010999692025 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 122/2025 GAIL GAS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N L Ganapathi, Ms. Manvi Rastogi & Ms. Anaida Khan, Advs. versus PRINCE GLASS WORKS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj & Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. This petition is filed under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of a substitute arbitrator. 2. The brief facts are that the parties to the lis engaged in arbitration proceedings which culminated in award dated 24.08.2009. The claims of the respondent were rejected whereas one counter-claim of the petitioner was partially allowed. The award was challenged by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act. The matter was remanded by the court vide order dated 09.05.2011 in the following terms:- “15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I consider it appropriate to remand the counter-claim awarded in favour of the respondent to the leamed Arbitrator for re-consideration of the petitioner’s submission that M/s Rockwin Flowmeter India Private Limited was not competent to furnish the test report. To establish this issue, it shall be open to the parties to lead any further evidence that may consider appropriate. The original This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:51:38 arbitral record be sent back to the Tribunal by the Registry at the earliest. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 3. After the remand, the matter remained pending before the arbitrator and was adjourned sine die on 09.04.2014 with liberty to the parties to revive the arbitration proceedings by filing an application. On 01.07.2014, the petitioner filed an application seeking resumption of the proceedings and thereafter the matter was heard in February, 2023 and May, 2023. The respondent failed to appear before the arbitrator despite notices issued for 20.07.2023, 09.08.2023 and 07.11.2023. The respondent wrote a letter dated 06.02.2024 which according to the arbitrator was derogatory and cast aspersions on the conduct of the arbitrator. Consequent thereto, the arbitrator recused from the proceedings by passing the following order:- “Date: 28-03-2023 Order: A letter from M/s Prince one Works was received by me on February 12, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. Though it is addressed to the Respondent Company I feel it contains a concealed aspersion on me too. I need not go into the details as to how M/s Prince Glass Works has been most uncooperative and has been derailing the proceedings resulting in one adjournment after another. Add to it the fact that it is not even paying in paltry share of the arbitral fee. In this regard reference may particularly be drawn to the order by me on August 21, 2023 and to subsequent proceedings showing how the Claimant is delaying the proceedings. Reference may particularly be drawn to the Minutes of Proceedings dated December 11, 2023 and to the subsequent Minutes of proceedings of February 5, 2024 adjourning the proceedings sine die. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:51:38 The letter now received from M/s Prince Glass Works of February 6, 2024, to my mind is not only derogatory but casts reflection on my conduct too. I may mention that there is an application from the Respondent dated February 8, 2024 for revival of the proceedings. However, in view of the letter of M/s Prince Glass Works received on February 12, 2024 I am not inclined to proceed with the matter any further. I therefore recuse myself from the proceedings. Any of the parties may get any other person appointed as the Arbitrator.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter having been remanded in 2011 is still pending. The letter written by the respondent resulted in the arbitrator recusing himself. This court may appoint an arbitrator, considering that the arrangement agreed between the parties for appointment of arbitrator cannot now be resorted to in view of the amendment to Section 12 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argues that there was delay by the petitioner in pursuing the remedy before the arbitrator and for seeking revival of the proceedings after the matter was adjourned sine die. It is further contended that the mandate of the arbitrator had expired long ago. 6. The contentions of learned counsel for the respondent lacks merit and are misconceived. It would not be appropriate for this court to examine the contents of the letter written by the respondent to the arbitrator. 7. Suffice to say that the contents as per the arbitrator were derogatory and cast aspersions on the conduct of the arbitrator, consequent upon which the arbitrator recused from the proceedings. The issues now being raised can be raised by respondent before the arbitrator. Suffice to say that the respondent by its own conduct compelled the arbitrator to recuse from the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:51:38 matter and thereafter rely upon the resultant situation to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to remedy. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the mandate of the arbitrator had expired, is of no avail at this stage. It would not be out of place to mention that under Section 29A of the Act, and this court is also empowered to extend mandate where sufficient cause exists. In any event the question of extension of the mandate is not the issue before this court at this stage. 9. The petition is allowed. 10. Mr. Amitabh Narendra, Advocate (Mobile No. 9810214798) is appointed as the sole arbitrator and shall substitute the earlier arbitrator. 11. Arbitral proceedings will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule. 12. Before entering upon reference, the learned Arbitrator will comply with Section 12 of the Act. 13. It is made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties and it will be open for the parties to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator which will be considered in accordance with law. 14. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Arbitrator for information. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 Ch This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:51:38