Practice Areas

Follow us

When Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings For Non-Appearance Of Parties, Remain Unchallenged, Application Filed Again For Appointment Of Arbitrator Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court

[04 July 2022] The Rajasthan High Court held that a second arbitration application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) was not challenged under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari held that the legal maxim ‘Vigilantibus Non-Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt’ which means that ‘the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’ would squarely apply to a situation where the petitioner slept over its right to challenge the order of termination but filed a second application for appointment of arbitrator.
The Court held that second arbitration application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) was not challenged under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act. The Court also observed that the legal maxim ‘Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt’ which means that ‘the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’ would squarely apply to a situation where the petitioner slept over its right to challenge the order of termination but filed second application for appointment of arbitrator.
The Court observed that the correct recourse for the applicant was to challenge the order of termination under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act. The Court further observed that the order was passed on 29.11.2016 and the present application was passed after a lapse of 3 years and 7 months, therefore, barred by limitation.
The Court also observed that the dictum of Uttarkhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Versus Northern Coal Field Ltd.: (2020) 2 SCC 455 wherein the SC observed that issue of limitation should be decided by the arbitrator would not apply to a second arbitration application. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/bighelpers/public_html/asialawoffices/wp-content/themes/justicia/framework/modules/blog/templates/parts/single/single-navigation.php on line 18