In a hearing that moved briskly yet carried a quiet intensity, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Delhi High Court order that had extended the tenure of an arbitrator in a long-running partnership dispute. The bench, led by Justice Alok Aradhe, made it clear that once the statutory time limit under arbitration law expires, “the mandate simply cannot be stretched.” The court’s straightforward tone suggested a desire to end what it viewed as needless procedural detours.
Background
The conflict dates back to a partnership arrangement from 1992 involving Mohan Lal Fatehpuria, his wife, and several partners of Bharat Textiles. After disagreements escalated, the Delhi High Court appointed advocate Anjum Javed as the sole arbitrator in 2020.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags Faulty Trap Procedures While Granting Bail to Labour Officer Accused
But the arbitration timeline soon became tangled. The arbitrator repeatedly asked the parties to deposit administrative expenses; some partners resisted, accusing him of charging more than what the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act allows. Their earlier attempt to remove him had failed in 2022.
The Covid-19 pandemic complicated the timelines further. Yet even with the Supreme Court’s blanket extension of limitation periods during that time, the award was still not delivered within the one-year statutory period after pleadings closed. By early 2023, the clock had silently run out. Still, the High Court extended the arbitrator’s mandate in April 2025, refusing to substitute him.
Read also:- Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order in sensitive POCSO matter, questions absence
Court’s Observations
Inside the packed courtroom, the bench did not hide its discomfort with the High Court’s approach. Justice Aradhe read portions of Section 29A aloud, stressing that the law demands strict timelines so arbitration does not drag endlessly.
“The bench observed, ‘Once the period lapses, the arbitrator becomes functus officio-he cannot continue unless a court legally revives the mandate.’” The judges noted that this is not a minor procedural point but a safeguard intended to protect parties from stalled proceedings.
They also pointed out that the parties never applied for a timely extension of the arbitrator’s term. And without such a request, the mandate had already expired on 28 February 2023-something the court described almost as a matter of mathematical certainty.
When counsel for the respondents argued that earlier proceedings under Sections 14 and 15 (which deal with removal of an arbitrator) barred substitution now, the bench firmly disagreed. Those provisions, the court explained, operate on separate grounds. Here the issue was the simple fact that the arbitrator’s authority had lapsed by law.
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses NCDC's Tax Deduction Claim, Says Dividend and Deposit Interest Not
Decision
Concluding the arguments, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court order and held that the sole arbitrator’s mandate “stood terminated by operation of law.” In his place, the court appointed former Delhi High Court judge Justice Najmi Waziri as the new sole arbitrator. The case, the bench directed, will resume from the stage already completed and must be wrapped up within six months of receiving the order.
With that, the courtroom settled into a brief hush-an acknowledgment that a meandering arbitration had finally been nudged back onto a clear track. The decision ended exactly where the order itself ended: with the appeals allowed and no order on costs.
Case Title: Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. M/s Bharat Textiles & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13759 & 13779 of 2025)
Case Type: Civil Appeal – Arbitration (Section 29A, Arbitration and Conciliation Act)
Decision Date: 10 December 2025
