In short. To challenge an arbitrator at DIAC, you send the Delhi International Arbitration Centre a written notice of challenge, with reasons, within 14 days of getting the notice of appointment or of learning the facts. The Chairperson or a Sub-Committee decides it, usually on the papers, within 60 days. This is for any party that doubts an arbitrator's independence, impartiality or disclosure. If the arbitrator is legally ineligible under Section 12(5), the route is different. That one goes to court. Read the disclosure today and write down the date it reached you.
Is this your situation?
- DIAC's email with the arbitrator's disclosure came in this morning. One line in it has been bothering you since.
- Someone in your sales team says this arbitrator used to advise the other side. Or was appointed by them in a couple of earlier cases.
- At the first hearing, the arbitrator and the opposing counsel were on first-name terms, and you've heard they share chambers.
- The other party picked the arbitrator on its own, under a clause that gave it the sole right to appoint.
- Three orders in a row have gone against you. You're starting to wonder if that's bias or just bad luck.
- Months have passed with no hearing date, and the award was reserved long ago.
- The disclosure came while you were travelling and nobody opened it. Is it too late now?
The short answer: how to challenge an arbitrator at DIAC
In a DIAC arbitration, you challenge an arbitrator before the Centre. Not before the tribunal. Not before a court. Rule 10.1 of the DIAC (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023 allows a challenge only before DIAC, and only on three footings: circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's impartiality or independence, a missing qualification the parties had agreed on, or an arbitrator who can't or doesn't perform. Your notice has to go within 14 days of receiving the notice of appointment, or within 14 days of learning the facts (Rule 10.3).
The DIAC Chairperson or a Sub-Committee decides within 60 days of receiving the notice, usually on paper without an oral hearing (Rules 10.5 and 10.9). Win, and a substitute arbitrator is appointed. Lose, and the arbitration goes on. You can raise the point again when you challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
There's one big exception. If the arbitrator falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Act, he or she is ineligible under Section 12(5) and the mandate ends by law. That's a question of eligibility, not doubt. A dispute about it goes to court under Section 14, not through the Rule 10 process.
The law on independence and challenge
Section 12, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Anyone approached to act as arbitrator has to disclose in writing, in the Sixth Schedule form, anything likely to raise justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality. That covers past or present links with the parties, counsel or the subject matter, and anything that might stop the person giving enough time and finishing within 12 months (Section 12(1)). The duty lasts through the whole arbitration (Section 12(2)). A challenge lies only for justifiable doubts or lack of agreed qualifications (Section 12(3)). You can challenge your own nominee only for reasons you learned after appointing him (Section 12(4)). And a person whose relationship falls in the Seventh Schedule is ineligible, unless the parties waive it by an express written agreement made after the dispute arose (Section 12(5)).
Section 13, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The parties can agree on a challenge procedure. Adopting the DIAC Rules does exactly that. Without such an agreement, the challenge goes to the tribunal within 15 days of learning that it was constituted, or of learning the circumstances. If a challenge under the agreed procedure fails, the tribunal carries on and makes its award (Section 13(4)). The challenging party can then apply to set the award aside under Section 34 (Section 13(5)).
Sections 14 and 15, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
An arbitrator's mandate ends if he becomes unable in law or in fact to perform, fails to act without undue delay, withdraws, or the parties agree to end it (Section 14(1)). If there's a dispute about any of that, a party can ask the court to decide (Section 14(2)). A substitute is then appointed under the same rules that governed the original appointment (Section 15(2)). The tribunal can decide whether earlier hearings need to be held again (Section 15(3)).
Rules 7, 10 and 11, DIAC (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023
Rule 7 requires a written disclosure under Section 12 of the Act. Rule 10 covers challenges. They go only to DIAC, with a notice within 14 days sent to DIAC, the other party and the arbitrators, giving reasons. DIAC can call for comments within 10 days, and the Chairperson or a Sub-Committee decides within 60 days. There's a processing deposit of Rs 10,000, refunded if the challenge succeeds (check the current amount). Costs can be imposed if it fails, and the decision is on papers unless an oral hearing is directed. Rule 11 deals with substitution after death, resignation, withdrawal or removal. It also allows an arbitrator who isn't performing, or is delaying, to be replaced after everyone has had a chance to comment.
What does a DIAC arbitrator have to disclose?
Every DIAC arbitrator files a written disclosure under Rule 7, in the form in the Sixth Schedule to the Act. The form asks about any past or present relationship with the parties or their counsel, whether financial, business, professional or social. It asks about any interest in the outcome, and anything else that could raise justifiable doubts. It also asks how many other arbitrations the person is handling, and whether this one can be finished within 12 months. DIAC sends it to the parties, usually with the notice of appointment.
Read it the day it comes. Sit with your lawyer and with someone in the business who knows who the other side deals with. Look for the other party's group companies, its senior people and its law firm. Check the arbitrator's listed appointments against reported judgments and what your industry knows. If a disclosure is silent about a relationship you later dig up, that silence can itself be a ground. It suggests something was kept back.
Disclosure doesn't stop on day one. Under Section 12(2) it continues. If the arbitrator later takes on fresh work from the other side, or the other side's counsel joins the arbitrator's chambers, a new disclosure should follow. If it doesn't, and you find out, your 14 days run from the day you learn of it.
What counts as bias or a conflict? The Fifth and Seventh Schedules
The Act has two lists. The Fifth Schedule sets out circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts, and it guides the decision on a challenge. The Seventh Schedule sets out relationships so close that the person simply can't act. Lots of items appear in both. What differs is the treatment. A Fifth Schedule ground is weighed by DIAC on a challenge. A Seventh Schedule relationship ends the mandate by law.
Seventh Schedule relationships include being an employee, consultant or adviser of a party, or having some other past or present business relationship with it. Being a manager or director, or part of the management, of a party or its affiliate. Regularly advising a party or its affiliate. Being a lawyer in the same law firm as one side's counsel. Holding a significant financial interest in a party or the outcome. And a close family relationship with a party, or, for a company, with the people who manage and control it. If any of these applies, the person can't act unless both sides expressly waive it in writing after the dispute arose.
The Fifth Schedule casts a wider net. It covers things like the arbitrator having been appointed by the same party or its affiliate more than once in the recent past, having already given an opinion on this very dispute, being close friends with a party or its counsel, or the arbitrator's law firm having acted for a party in recent years. None of these is automatically fatal. DIAC asks one question: would a fair-minded, informed person who knew the facts have a justifiable doubt?
The Supreme Court explained this split in HRD Corporation v. GAIL (India) Ltd. (2017). Seventh Schedule grounds make the arbitrator ineligible and can be taken to court under Section 14. Fifth Schedule grounds go through the Section 13 challenge procedure and, if that fails, get raised after the award under Section 34.
Grounds that tend to work, and grounds that usually don't
- Taken seriously: a business link nobody mentioned. Say the arbitrator had a consultancy, a retainer or a job with a party or its group, and the disclosure left it out. That gets attention.
- Taken seriously: ties with the other side's counsel. Shared chambers, or a close personal friendship. If they're in the same law firm, it's not a doubt at all. It's outright ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule.
- Taken seriously: being appointed again and again. Several recent appointments by the same party or its affiliates. The Fifth Schedule treats this as a possible source of doubt.
- Taken seriously: having already made up his mind. The arbitrator published an opinion, or gave advice, on the very dispute between you.
- Usually fails: "he keeps ruling against us". Refusing your adjournment, dismissing your application or deciding a procedural point the other way isn't bias. If an order is wrong, you attack the award later, not the arbitrator.
- Usually fails: they know each other from the bar. In a small professional world, people sit on panels together and turn up at the same seminars. That's normal.
- Usually fails: a bad feeling with no facts behind it. General unease without specifics is likely to be thrown out, and it can earn you costs under Rule 10.7.
How do you actually file a challenge under Rule 10?
You send a written notice of challenge to DIAC, and at the same time to the other party and the arbitrators, giving your reasons (Rule 10.4). Be specific about the facts. What's the relationship or circumstance? When did you learn of it, and how? Why does it create a justifiable doubt? Attach the proof. A challenge resting on company records, published orders, screenshots or the arbitrator's own disclosure carries far more weight than one resting on something a colleague heard at a wedding.
Pay the processing deposit along with the notice. Under Rule 10.5, the notice isn't treated as received until the Rs 10,000 processing deposit is made, and that amount is refunded if you succeed. Check the current figure with the Centre. DIAC may ask the other party and the arbitrator to comment within 10 days. Quite often, faced with a well-founded challenge, the arbitrator steps down. Sometimes the other side agrees to the challenge. Either way, a substitute is appointed.
If neither happens, the Chairperson or a Sub-Committee decides within 60 days of receiving the notice. It's normally decided on paper, without an oral hearing, unless one is ordered (Rule 10.9). That means your written notice is your entire case. Draft it as if you'll never get to say a word in support.
A pending challenge doesn't freeze the arbitration on its own. But Rule 10.5 extends the time for the award by however long the challenge takes. If you're worried a hearing will go ahead before DIAC decides, write to the tribunal asking it to hold off on substantive steps, and copy DIAC.
The 14-day limit, and how objections get lost
The 14 days under Rule 10.3 run from receiving the notice of appointment, or from learning of the circumstances, whichever fits. Under the Act alone, Section 13(2) would give you 15 days. But by adopting the DIAC Rules the parties agreed to DIAC's procedure. So work on 14. And count from when the notice hit your inbox or your office, not from when your lawyer finally got the file.
A late challenge will probably be rejected for delay. Section 4 of the Act also treats a party that carries on with the arbitration, knowing of a departure from the agreed procedure and not objecting in time, as having waived the objection. A party that sits on a known ground, watches how the hearings go, and only objects after a bad order won't find much sympathy at DIAC or in court. When Advocate B.K. Singh is handed a disclosure, he date-stamps it and counts 14 days before he even reads what it says.
Seventh Schedule ineligibility works differently. In Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd. (2019), the Supreme Court held that a waiver under Section 12(5) has to be an express written agreement made after the dispute arose. It can't be read into conduct, like taking part in the arbitration or filing a statement of claim. So a party that learns of ineligibility late can still raise it. Don't treat that as a reason to wait, though. The longer you leave it, the more work goes to waste when the mandate ends.
Ineligibility under Section 12(5): straight to court under Section 14
If the arbitrator's relationship with a party or counsel falls in the Seventh Schedule, the arbitrator is ineligible by law. The mandate ends under Section 14(1)(a), because he's unable in law to act. If the other side disputes that, you apply to the court under Section 14(2). You don't have to go through a Rule 10 challenge first, though many parties also write to DIAC so the record is straight. At DIAC, in practice, the arbitrator often withdraws once the ineligibility is pointed out.
Section 12(5) also reaches people whose problem isn't their own relationships but who appointed them. In TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017), the Supreme Court held that someone ineligible to be an arbitrator can't nominate one either. In Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (2019), it held that a party with an interest in the outcome can't appoint a sole arbitrator on its own. Then came Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), decided on 8 November 2024. A Constitution Bench held that unilateral appointment clauses breach the principle of equal treatment of parties, and in public contracts Article 14 of the Constitution as well. The part of the ruling on three-member tribunals applies to appointments made after the judgment.
These issues come up less in DIAC cases, since arbitrators are drawn from the DIAC panel and appointed through the Centre. They do surface when a party nominates someone to a three-member tribunal, when the contract gave one side a controlling hand in appointment, or when the case reached DIAC after a Section 11 petition. Our guides on how DIAC appoints arbitrators and Section 11 references to DIAC walk through those routes.
Your own nominee, and an arbitrator who's just slow
You can challenge the arbitrator you nominated only for reasons you learned after the appointment (Section 12(4), Rule 10.2). If you knew about the relationship when you put the name forward, you can't complain later. Ask a prospective nominee your questions before you nominate. And read the disclosure before you confirm.
An arbitrator who won't fix dates, keeps adjourning or sits on a reserved award isn't biased. The mandate can still end, though. Section 14(1)(a) covers an arbitrator who fails to act without undue delay. Rule 11.2 of the DIAC Rules lets the Chairperson or Sub-Committee replace an arbitrator who isn't performing or is delaying, once the arbitrator, the parties and the other members have had a chance to comment in writing. The usual first move is a letter to DIAC with a dated chronology of the delay. Keep it dry.
Delay also brings in Section 29A. The award is due within 12 months of pleadings closing, extendable by six months if both sides agree. After that, only the court can extend the mandate, and when it does it can replace one or more arbitrators. Our guide on time limits in a DIAC arbitration explains the Section 29A route.
What happens after DIAC decides?
If you win, the Chairperson appoints a substitute under the DIAC Rules (Rule 10.6) and your processing deposit comes back. Under Rule 11.3, the new tribunal picks up from wherever the case had reached, unless it directs otherwise. Section 15(3) of the Act lets it decide whether earlier hearings should be repeated, and Section 15(4) keeps earlier orders valid unless the parties agree otherwise. If evidence was recorded in front of an arbitrator later found to be biased, ask the new tribunal in writing to think about recording it again.
If you lose, the tribunal carries on and makes its award (Section 13(4)). DIAC can put costs on you (Rule 10.7). You can't appeal to a court at that point. Courts generally won't entertain mid-arbitration petitions against a rejected Fifth Schedule challenge, because Section 13(5) sends that objection to Section 34, after the award. So keep it alive. Say in your statement of defence or written submissions that you maintain the objection, and raise it again in any Section 34 petition. Our guide on setting aside a DIAC award under Section 34 covers that petition, three-month limit included.
And if the award is later set aside because of the challenged arbitrator? Section 13(6) lets the court decide whether he gets any fees at all.
Timing and costs of a DIAC arbitrator challenge
| Stage | Deadline or usual time | What it costs (lawyer fees not shown) |
|---|---|---|
| You receive the disclosure and notice of appointment (Rule 7) | At appointment or soon after | Nothing |
| Notice of challenge goes to DIAC (Rule 10.3) | Within 14 days of getting the notice of appointment or learning the facts | Processing deposit of Rs 10,000, refunded if you win. Check the current amount |
| The other side and the arbitrator comment (Rule 10.4) | Within 10 days, if DIAC asks | Nothing |
| Chairperson or Sub-Committee decides (Rule 10.5) | Within 60 days of the notice being received | Costs can be ordered against you if the challenge fails (Rule 10.7) |
| Substitute is appointed (Rules 10.6 and 11) | Usually a few weeks | Fee adjustments as DIAC decides. Ask the Centre |
| Section 14(2) application to court for Seventh Schedule ineligibility | No fixed deadline, but don't sit on it | Court fee under the court's schedule. Check the current figure |
| Section 34 challenge to the award on a rejected ground | Within three months of receiving the award, plus up to 30 days if you show sufficient cause | Court fee under the court's schedule. Check the current figure |
Challenging a DIAC arbitrator, step by step
Date-stamp the disclosure
Write down when the notice of appointment and the disclosure reached you, and count 14 days. If the ground surfaced later, note exactly when and how you found out, and keep the proof.
Check your facts
Search company records, reported judgments and DIAC orders. Ask your own people what dealings the arbitrator has had with the other side or its counsel. Never file on gossip.
Work out which kind of ground it is
Is it Seventh Schedule ineligibility (Section 12(5), court under Section 14) or a Fifth Schedule doubt (DIAC challenge under Rule 10)? Some facts fit both. Get advice on which step goes first.
Draft the notice
Set out the ground, the facts, the date you learned them, and why a fair-minded observer would doubt the arbitrator's independence or impartiality. Attach the documents. Stay factual. Stay polite.
Send it to everyone and pay the deposit
Send the notice to DIAC, the other party and the arbitrators at the same time (Rule 10.4). Pay the processing deposit, or the notice isn't treated as received.
Ask the tribunal to hold off
Write to the tribunal asking it not to take up the merits until DIAC decides, and copy DIAC. Under Rule 10.5 the award time is extended by the challenge period anyway.
Reply to any comments
If the other side or the arbitrator files comments, answer quickly and briefly on anything new. The decision will most likely be on paper, so what you write is all that counts.
Keep the objection alive
If the challenge fails, say in your pleadings or submissions that you maintain it, and raise it again in any Section 34 petition after the award.
Papers you'll need for a challenge
From your arbitration file
- The notice of appointment, and the date you actually got it
- The arbitrator's Sixth Schedule disclosure, and any later ones
- The arbitration clause, plus anything agreed on how many arbitrators or what qualifications
- Procedural orders that show the timeline, if you're complaining of delay
Proof of what you're alleging
- Directorship or shareholding records pulled from the MCA portal
- Engagement letters, invoices, retainer agreements or emails that show a business tie
- Published judgments or orders showing the same party appointed this arbitrator before
- Law firm or chambers listings that put the arbitrator and counsel together
To go with the notice itself
- A short, dated chronology of when you learned each fact
- An authority letter or board resolution for whoever signs for the company
- Proof that DIAC, the other party and the arbitrators were all served
- The receipt for the processing deposit
Who hears the challenge: DIAC, the tribunal or the court
In a DIAC arbitration, a Fifth Schedule challenge is heard by DIAC itself, through the Chairperson or a Sub-Committee, under Rule 10. DIAC sits in the Delhi High Court premises in New Delhi. Check its website for the current address and filing practice. Ad hoc arbitration is different. There, the tribunal rules on a challenge to its own member under Section 13(3). Our guide on DIAC or ad hoc arbitration sets out that difference and a few others.
A Section 14(2) application on ineligibility, and a Section 34 petition after the award, go to the court defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act for the seat. For a commercial dispute of specified value seated in Delhi, Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 sends these to the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court if the value is above Rs 2 crore, and to the district-level commercial court below that (check the current limit). Our page on the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court explains filing and listing there. If the seat is Ghaziabad, Noida, Gurugram or Faridabad, the district's designated Commercial Court has jurisdiction. Section 37 appeals then go to the Commercial Appellate Division of the Allahabad High Court or the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
And if your dispute isn't at DIAC at all, say an ad hoc arbitration where the other side named the arbitrator alone, the general practice at arbitrationlawyer.in handles Section 11, 12 and 14 petitions outside the DIAC framework.
Mistakes parties make when objecting to an arbitrator
- Never opening the disclosure. It sits unread in someone's inbox, and the 14 days quietly expire.
- Challenging because you lost an application. An unfavourable ruling isn't bias. Challenges on that basis mostly fail, and some attract costs.
- Holding the point back to see how things go. If you knew early and only raise it after a bad hearing, expect it to be treated as waived.
- Picking the wrong route. Seventh Schedule ineligibility goes to court under Section 14. A Fifth Schedule doubt goes to DIAC under Rule 10. Confusing the two wastes weeks.
- Going after the person. Calling an arbitrator dishonest without proof hurts you with whoever ends up deciding the case. Put the facts down and leave them there.
- Dropping the objection after it fails. If it isn't kept on record, it's harder to bring back in a Section 34 petition.
- Not quizzing your own nominee. Under Section 12(4), you can't later challenge your nominee on facts you already knew.
How it differs for claimants, respondents, PSUs, MSMEs and large companies
Claimants usually want speed. So raise any concern at the very start, when a substitution costs the least. Respondents are sometimes tempted to use a challenge to buy time. DIAC watches for that, and Rule 10.7 allows costs against a failed challenge. A tactical challenge can also colour how the tribunal sees you for the rest of the case. Challenge when there's a real ground. Not otherwise.
PSUs and government departments often have standard clauses giving them a hand in appointing arbitrators. After the 2024 Constitution Bench ruling, a clause that lets one side alone appoint a sole arbitrator, or makes the other side choose from a panel the PSU has picked, is open to attack. If a case like that has landed at DIAC, check exactly how the tribunal was put together before the first hearing.
MSMEs and smaller businesses often feel awkward objecting to a retired judge or a senior advocate. Don't. Independence is a legal requirement, and a well-drafted, courteous notice is a normal part of arbitration. Big companies with many arbitrations have the reverse problem. The same names may have sat in several of their matters. Keep a register of past appointments, so you can answer repeat-appointment questions, and disclose them, accurately.
Startups and service firms that live off one big contract should think about this when the contract is drafted. A clause sending disputes to DIAC, with the Centre making appointments, sidesteps most unilateral appointment trouble. Our guide to the DIAC arbitration clause explains how to word it.
A made-up example: a disclosure that left something out
This example is invented. A Ghaziabad packaging company is the respondent in a DIAC arbitration started by a Delhi paper mill over unpaid invoices of Rs 1.6 crore. DIAC appoints a sole arbitrator from its panel. The arbitrator's Sixth Schedule disclosure reaches the company's email on 2 June. It lists no relationship with either side.
On 20 June, the company's purchase head mentions something in passing. He'd seen the arbitrator's name in the paper mill's annual report, two years back, as a member of an advisory committee. The company's lawyer pulls the report and finds the entry. On 25 June, within 14 days of learning the fact, a notice of challenge goes to DIAC with the report and a short chronology attached. The paper mill and the arbitrator get it the same day, and the processing deposit is paid.
DIAC calls for comments. The arbitrator replies that the committee role ended long ago, but steps down so the arbitration isn't clouded. A substitute is appointed and the case resumes from where it stood. Had the company waited until a hearing went badly before raising it, things could have turned out very differently.
What to do this week
Dig out the arbitrator's disclosure and the notice of appointment. Note when each one reached you. Count 14 days. Ask your team if anyone recognises the arbitrator's name in connection with the other side or its lawyers, and run the name through public company records. If something turns up, decide quickly whether it's Seventh Schedule ineligibility or a Fifth Schedule doubt. The route and the forum aren't the same.
Our DIAC arbitration lawyer page explains how the firm runs DIAC matters from notice to award. The step-by-step DIAC process guide shows where appointment and challenge sit in the wider timeline. In the challenges Advocate B.K. Singh has worked on, the result has turned less on the law than on whether the facts were collected, and put in writing, in time.
If you'd like a disclosure and your concerns looked at before the 14 days run out, send them to Advocate B.K. Singh's team through the contact page.
Frequently asked questions
How do I challenge an arbitrator at DIAC?
Write a notice of challenge setting out your reasons and send it to DIAC, the other side and the arbitrators. It must go within 14 days of getting the notice of appointment, or of finding out the facts (Rule 10 of the DIAC Rules, 2023). The processing deposit goes with it. You'll usually get a decision on paper from the Chairperson or a Sub-Committee within 60 days.
What's the time limit to challenge an arbitrator at DIAC?
Fourteen days. The clock starts when you get the notice of appointment, or when you come to know the facts behind the challenge (Rule 10.3). Section 13(2) of the Act would give 15 days, but the DIAC procedure the parties signed up to takes its place. File late and expect to be told you've waived it.
What are valid grounds to challenge an arbitrator?
Three kinds. Facts that make a fair person doubt the arbitrator's independence or impartiality. A qualification you both agreed on that the arbitrator doesn't have. Or an arbitrator who can't or won't do the job. The Fifth Schedule gives examples: business dealings with a party, ties with counsel, repeat appointments. Losing a procedural application isn't a ground by itself.
What's the difference between the Fifth and Seventh Schedules?
Think of the Fifth Schedule as a list of warning signs that DIAC weighs when it hears a challenge. The Seventh Schedule is a list of relationships that disqualify a person outright under Section 12(5). The mandate ends by law unless both sides give up the objection in writing, expressly, after the dispute began. Fights over Seventh Schedule ineligibility go to court under Section 14.
Can I go to court if DIAC rejects my challenge?
For a Fifth Schedule ground, not straight away. The case continues, and your objection waits for a Section 34 petition once the award is out (Section 13(5)). Seventh Schedule ineligibility is different. You can take that to court under Section 14(2) whenever it comes up.
Can I challenge the arbitrator I nominated?
Yes, but only on facts that came to your notice after the appointment (Section 12(4) of the Act, Rule 10.2 of the DIAC Rules). Anything you already knew when you named the person is off the table. That's why we question a nominee closely before putting the name in.
Does the arbitration stop while my challenge is pending?
No, not automatically. Write to the tribunal and ask it to keep the merits hearings on hold until DIAC rules. Whatever time the challenge eats up is added to the deadline for the award under Rule 10.5.
Can an arbitrator be removed for delay at DIAC?
Yes. Under Section 14(1)(a), the mandate ends if an arbitrator fails to act without undue delay. DIAC's Rule 11.2 also lets the Chairperson or Sub-Committee bring in a replacement for an arbitrator who's sitting on the file, once written comments have been invited. A letter to DIAC with a dated list of what's been delayed, and for how long, is where to begin.
Advocate B.K. Singh
Founder of B.K. Singh & Associates. MCA, LL.B., LL.M. More than twenty years in practice before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, district and commercial courts in Delhi NCR, and tribunals.
This guide explains the law in general terms and is not legal advice. For advice on your own papers, contact the team.