Legal Review and Analysis of Harshbir Singh Pannu & Anr vs Jaswinder Singh 2025 INSC 1400
Case Synopsis
Harshbir Singh Pannu & Anr. vs. Jaswinder Singh
Citation: 2025 INSC 1400
Arbitral Termination: Unity, Finality, and Remedy.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court ruled that the power to terminate arbitral proceedings by order vests exclusively in Section 32(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Termination triggered by events under Sections 25, 30, or 38 is legally effected only under Section 32, resulting in finality of the mandate. The sole remedy against such termination is a challenge under Section 14(2), precluding a fresh arbitration or recall.
Judgment Title: Harshbir Singh Pannu & Anr. vs. Jaswinder Singh
Citation: 2025 INSC 1400
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Decided On: 2025
1. Heading of the Judgment
This judgment by the Supreme Court of India deals with the interpretation of provisions related to the termination of arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It primarily resolves the conflict regarding whether the power to terminate proceedings under Sections 25, 30, and 38 is independent or must be exercised under the framework of Section 32 of the Act.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment extensively analyzes the following provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
Section 25: Default of a party (termination for claimant's failure to file statement of claim).
Section 30: Settlement (termination upon settlement by parties).
Section 32: Termination of proceedings (general provision for termination by final award or tribunal's order).
Section 38: Deposits (power to suspend or terminate for non-payment of costs/fees).
Section 14: Termination of mandate of arbitrator.
Section 11: Appointment of arbitrators.
Section 15: Substitution of arbitrators.
The Court also references the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), which forms the basis of the 1996 Act.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case:
The appellants and respondent were partners in a firm. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration.
The High Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator. The arbitrator fixed fees based on the Fourth Schedule.
The appellants failed to pay their share of the arbitral fees. The respondent also refused to pay the appellants' share.
Invoking Section 38(2), the Sole Arbitrator terminated the arbitral proceedings due to non-payment.
The appellants challenged this termination before the High Court under Section 11(6) seeking a fresh arbitrator appointment. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that termination under Section 38 was valid and the remedy lay under Section 14(2) or via a recall application.
The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination:
What is the meaning of "termination of arbitral proceedings" under the 1996 Act? Is it uniform across different provisions?
What is the effect of termination under Section 38? Is it the same as termination under Section 32?
What remedy is available against an order terminating arbitral proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi (Court’s Reasoning):
The Court conducted a detailed analysis of Sections 25, 30, 32, and 38, along with the legislative history of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
It held that Section 32 is the sole repository of the power to terminate arbitral proceedings by an order. Sections 25, 30, and 38 only specify circumstances in which termination can occur, but any formal order must be made under Section 32(2).
Termination under Section 32(2) results in the termination of the arbitrator’s mandate (Section 32(3)). This is a final act that concludes the arbitral reference.
The Court overruled the contrary view in SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Tuff Drilling (P) Ltd. (2018) and Sai Babu v. Clariya Steels (P) Ltd., which had suggested that termination under Section 25(a) was distinct and allowed for recall.
It affirmed the view in Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi v. Dharamdas Sanghvi (2014) that termination on grounds like non-payment of fees falls under Section 32(2)(c) ("proceedings become impossible").
Consequently, a party cannot seek the appointment of a substitute arbitrator under Section 11 or 15 after such termination. The only remedy is to challenge the termination of the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 14(2) of the Act, on grounds that the termination was illegal or without jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that allowing a fresh arbitration after termination for default would undermine the finality of the arbitral process and encourage "tribunal hopping."
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Main Issue
The central issue was whether an arbitral tribunal’s order terminating proceedings for non-payment of fees under Section 38 is an independent termination or whether it must be treated as an order under Section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and what remedy is available against it.
What the Supreme Court Addressed
The Supreme Court addressed the interpretational conflict regarding the source of an arbitral tribunal’s power to terminate proceedings. It provided a harmonious construction of the scheme of the 1996 Act.
Analysis and Holding
Unified Theory of Termination: The Court held that the Act contemplates only two ways to terminate arbitral proceedings: (1) by a final award, or (2) by an order of the tribunal under Section 32(2). The phrases "shall terminate" in Sections 25(a) and 30(2), and "may terminate" in Section 38(2), merely identify triggering events. The legal act of termination is always effected through an order under Section 32(2).
Finality and Consequence: Termination under Section 32(2) brings the arbitrator’s mandate to an end (Section 32(3)). This terminates the entire arbitral reference. A party cannot circumvent this by filing a fresh application for arbitrator appointment.
Remedy: The appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party is to apply to the Court under Section 14(2) to decide whether the mandate has been validly terminated. A writ petition under Article 227 is not the preferred route, given the statutory scheme. A recall application to the tribunal itself is not permissible once proceedings are terminated under Section 32.
Policy Rationale: This interpretation upholds procedural discipline, prevents abuse by parties who default strategically, and ensures the finite resources of the arbitral system are not wasted on repetitive proceedings.
5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Sole Arbitrator’s termination order was validly passed under Section 32(2)(c) read with Section 38(2). The appellants’ remedy, if any, was to challenge the termination of the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 14(2) of the Act, and not by seeking a fresh appointment under Section 11. The High Court’s order was upheld, though on different legal reasoning.
6. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: According to the Supreme Court in Harshbir Singh Pannu vs. Jaswinder Singh (2025 INSC 1400), what is the ultimate source of an arbitral tribunal's power to pass an order terminating arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
(a) Section 25(a)
(b) Section 30(2)
(c) Section 32(2)
(d) Section 38(2)
Question 2: If an arbitral proceeding is terminated by the tribunal due to non-payment of fees by the parties, what is the correct legal remedy available to an aggrieved party as per the Supreme Court's ruling in this case?
(a) File a fresh application under Section 11 for appointment of a new arbitrator.
(b) File a recall application before the same arbitral tribunal.
(c) Challenge the termination under Section 34 as if it were an award.
(d) Apply to the Court under Section 14(2) to decide on the termination of the arbitrator's mandate.
Blog Posts
