Skip to content

CS Professional · Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation · Challenge to Award and Appeals

A three-member tribunal heard Rathi Pharma v. Gupta Logistics for six sittings and passed an interim procedural order. The presiding arbitrator's mandate then terminated and a substitute was appointed under the same rules that governed the original appointment. The parties made no agreement on the effect of replacement. Which position is correct?

Earlier orders stay valid merely because of the change, and earlier hearings may be repeated at the tribunal's discretion. Sections 15(3) and 15(4) apply unless the parties agree otherwise, so neither automatic invalidity nor mandatory repetition follows from replacing an arbitrator.

  1. AAll earlier orders become invalid because the tribunal's composition changed
  2. BPrevious hearings must necessarily be repeated in full
  3. CThe earlier order is not invalid solely due to the change, and previous hearings may be repeated at the tribunal's discretionCorrect
  4. DOnly the Court can decide whether any earlier hearing can be repeated

Explanation

Section 15(3) lets the tribunal, unless parties agree otherwise, repeat earlier hearings at its discretion, and Section 15(4) says earlier orders are not invalid solely because the composition changed. Section 15(2) requires the substitute to be appointed under the original appointment rules. Repetition is thus neither mandatory nor barred.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Challenge to Award and Appeals shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Challenge to Award and AppealsFree diagnostic mock

More Challenge to Award and Appeals questions