The Calcutta High Court has held that an arbitrator cannot be substituted under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in cases where the petitioner has voluntarily withdrawn from the arbitration proceedings and remained silent for an extended period. The ruling came from a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Shampa Sarkar.
The judgment was delivered in the matter of Ashok Kumar Bhuinya Proprietor Of A.K. Enterprise vs State Of West Bengal [AP/344/2022] on April 8, 2025.
The dispute arose from a work order issued by the State of West Bengal, which included an arbitration clause under Clause 25. As per the clause, an officer from the State was appointed as the arbitrator. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Bhuinya, had initiated arbitration proceedings and filed the Statement of Claim on January 20, 2012. Despite several sittings being scheduled, the respondent neither appeared nor filed a statement of defense.
Later, on advice from the respondent’s officials, the petitioner chose to withdraw from the proceedings. This was communicated through a letter dated May 2, 2012, addressed to the arbitrator, expressing a clear intention to withdraw.
Quoting from the court’s observation:
“The petitioner had intended to withdraw from the arbitral case and had withdrawn the same. He did not take part in the proceedings. He did not take back his letter seeking withdrawal from the proceedings.”
Despite the arbitrator fixing new hearing dates in November 2012 and April 2013, the petitioner did not participate in any of the sessions or attempt to rejoin the proceedings. Further, the petitioner submitted a final bill on June 6, 2012, explicitly stating that the arbitration case had been withdrawn.
In this context, the petitioner later approached the High Court seeking substitution of the arbitrator under Section 15, claiming that the arbitrator had become legally ineligible to act, especially after the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration Act and in light of the disqualifications listed under Section 12(5) and the accompanying Schedules.
However, the respondent argued that the arbitrator had clearly recorded the petitioner’s intention to withdraw, and that the petitioner maintained "inordinate silence" after that. The letters submitted as evidence demonstrated that the petitioner had not only withdrawn but had also shifted focus to extension of contract work and final bill submissions, thereby abandoning the arbitration process.
The court noted that there was no evidence of the petitioner attempting to retract the withdrawal or express any willingness to rejoin the arbitration process, even after multiple opportunities. Further, the application for substitution was filed nearly a decade later, without any valid explanation for the long delay.
In its ruling, the court emphasized:
“Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not applicable in the facts of the case. This is not a case where the arbitrator either recused or withdrew from office.”
The court also stated that the conditions for termination of the arbitrator's mandate were not met, as the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn by writing to both the arbitrator and the respondent.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application, holding it to be not maintainable due to the petitioner’s own withdrawal and lack of any follow-up action over a prolonged period.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhuinya Proprietor Of A.K. Enterprise Vs State Of West Bengal
Case Number: AP/344/2022
Judgment Date: 08/04/2025
