Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows the court, while extending time, to substitute one or all of the arbitrators. The question in Viva Highways Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (SLP (C) No. 38327/2025, decided 6 February 2026) was whether substitution must follow automatically once an arbitrator's mandate has terminated.
The Supreme Court held that it does not. In its words, substitution of an arbitrator is not an inevitable consequence which would necessarily follow the mandate of the arbitrator standing terminated. Whether to substitute is a matter for the court to decide on the facts.
Why it matters: parties sometimes treat a lapsed mandate as an opportunity to change the tribunal. This ruling makes clear there is no automatic right to a fresh arbitrator simply because time ran out — the court may extend and continue with the same tribunal where that is appropriate.
The practical takeaway: if you have concerns about a tribunal, they should be raised through the proper challenge mechanism on their own merits, not left to be resolved by a missed deadline.
This note summarises the reported judgment for general information and is not legal advice on any specific matter.