The Kerala High Court, under Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, has clarified an important aspect of arbitration law. The Court ruled that if an arbitrator’s appointment is declared void ab initio and the arbitral award is set aside on that ground, the entire earlier proceedings become null and void. As a result, the new arbitrator must initiate proceedings from the beginning.
“If the appointment of the arbitrator is void ab initio, then the proceedings before that arbitrator are non est in the eyes of law,” the Court stated.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: MACT Must Deduct Income Tax and Other Allowable Deductions While Calculating Compensation
Background of the Case
M.I. Mohammed, a government contractor, had signed a contract with M/s HLL Life Care Ltd. When disputes arose, the arbitration clause was invoked, and the Managing Director of HLL Life Care Ltd. unilaterally appointed an arbitrator. This arbitrator later issued an arbitral award.
However, HLL challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the appointment of the arbitrator was legally invalid as it was not done through mutual consent. The Court accepted this argument and set aside the arbitral award.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a plea under Section 11(6) of the same Act, seeking a new arbitrator and a direction that the new arbitrator continue proceedings from where the previous one had left off.
The Court rejected the request for continuation and made it clear that the entire previous arbitration process stands annulled. The Judge stated that any evidence or documents recorded before the earlier arbitrator cannot automatically be used by the new arbitrator.
“The Court, under Section 11(6), is not empowered to issue directions regarding evidence recorded before the previous arbitrator,” the Court emphasized.
Read Also:- Favouritism Exposed: High Court Quashes JKMSCL Contracts Over Rule Violations
It further stated that decisions regarding the admissibility of prior evidence must be taken solely by the new arbitrator.
The Court appointed Justice (Retd.) Mrs. Sophy Thomas as the new sole arbitrator in the case. It clarified that she must begin the arbitral proceedings afresh, without any presumption or continuity from the earlier proceedings.
“All prior proceedings are effaced; the new arbitrator has to start from scratch,” the Court ruled.
Case Title: M.I. Mohammed v. M/s. HLL Life Care Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: AR No. 95 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Sri. K. Babu Thomas, Smt. Marykutty Babu, Smt. Drisya Dileep
For the Respondents: Four Pillars Chambers, Advocate Nikhilesh Krishnan assisted by Abhishek Bhushan Singh, Aju Mathew, and Abu Mathew
