Failure or impossibility to act
Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with failure or impossibility to act. [The mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate and he shall be substituted by another arbitrator, if]— (a) he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay; The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
(1) 1[The mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate and he shall be substituted by another arbitrator, if]—
(a) he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay; and
(b) he withdraws from his office or the parties agree to the termination of his mandate.
(2) If a controversy remains concerning any of the grounds referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), a party may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, apply to the Court to decide on the termination of the mandate.
(3) If, under this section or sub-section (3) of section 13, an arbitrator withdraws from his office or a party agrees to the termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, it shall not imply acceptance of the validity of any ground referred to in this section or sub-section (3) of section 12.
Section 14, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
National Highway Authority of India General Manager (tech) Rananjay Singh vs Gayatri Jhansi Raodways Limited Authorized Signatory
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties have agreed upon a specific fee structure for arbitrators in their contract, such contractually agreed fees will govern the arbitration, and the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended in 2015) is not mandatory. The deletion of 'unless otherwise agreed by the parties' from Section 31A relates only to 'costs' awarded as part of the arbitral award and does not override contractual fee agreements. Arbitrators do not become de jure unable to perform their functions by following statutory law, and an application under Section 14 to terminate their mandate cannot succeed merely on the ground that they initially followed a statutory interpretation regarding fees.
On this section: Grounds for termination of arbitrator's mandate; Court held that arbitrators do not become de jure unable to perform functions merely by following statutory law on fee determination
-
Ntpc Limited vs Afcons R. N. Shetty and Co. Pvt. LTD Jv
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arbitrators do not have unilateral power to determine their own fees. Where parties have fixed fees by agreement or court has fixed fees by order, arbitrators are bound by such fees. Where no agreement or court order exists, arbitrators may fix reasonable fees only after transparent consultation with parties at preliminary stage, and such fees are subject to court review for reasonableness under Section 39. The Fourth Schedule is binding on ad hoc arbitrations post-Amendment Act 2019. The term 'sum in dispute' in Fourth Schedule refers to aggregate of claim and counter-claim. The ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs in Serial No. 6 applies to total fee, not just variable component. The fee is per individual arbitrator, not per tribunal. Arbitrators cannot charge separate fees for claims and counter-claims; they must charge single fee based on aggregate sum in dispute.
On this section: Termination of arbitrator's mandate - fee disputes do not constitute de jure inability to perform functions
-
Dani Wooltex Corporation vs Sheil Properties Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power under clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be exercised only when the Arbitral Tribunal records its satisfaction based on material on record that the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. Abandonment of a claim can be a ground to invoke this power, but abandonment cannot be readily inferred. Abandonment can be express or implied, but implied abandonment requires admitted or proved facts that are so clinching and convincing that the only inference which can be drawn is of abandonment. Mere failure of a claimant to request the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary or that the claim has been abandoned. It is the Arbitral Tribunal's duty to fix meetings and hearing dates, and it cannot abdicate this duty by requiring parties to request such dates. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot exercise its power under Section 32(2)(c) casually or without proper factual foundation, as doing so would defeat the very object of the Arbitration Act.
On this section: Grounds for challenge to arbitrator's appointment; scope of judicial review of arbitral proceedings
-
Kinnari Mullick vs Ghanshyam Das Damani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power vested in courts under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to adjourning proceedings before setting aside an arbitral award upon written request by a party to the arbitration, to allow the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume proceedings or take curative action. Courts possess no power to remand or relegate matters to the arbitral tribunal after the award has been set aside, and any such remand cannot be ordered suo moto.
On this section: Provision under which appellants filed application before High Court alleging bias and incompetence of arbitrator.
-
Internl. Adv. Res. Cen. for P. M. & N. M. vs Nimra Cerglass (p) Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an offence of cheating to be constituted under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: (i) making of a false representation; (ii) knowledge by the accused that representation is false; (iii) making the representation in order to deceive; and (iv) mens rea of dishonest inducement. Critically, the dishonest intention must exist at the time of making the inducement, not from subsequent failure to perform. A mere breach of contract, even if causing substantial financial loss, cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is demonstrated at the beginning of the transaction. When a technology transfer agreement explicitly provides for experimental development with contingency provisions for performance guarantee tests and liquidated damages, parties have contemplated possibility of failure to achieve specifications, negating the inference of dishonest intention at inception.
On this section: Petition for substitution of arbitrator - referenced as respondent filed Arbitration Petition No. 42/2008 challenging arbitrator appointment, indicating parties intended to resolve dispute through arbitration clause in agreement
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 14
What have the courts held on Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
National Highway Authority of India General Manager (tech) Rananjay Singh vs Gayatri Jhansi Raodways Limited Authorized Signatory (10 Jul 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Grounds for termination of arbitrator's mandate; Court held that arbitrators do not become de jure unable to perform functions merely by following statutory law on fee determination. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 14, section 14 Arbitration Act, section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration act 1996 section 14. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with National Highway Authority of India General Manager (tech) Rananjay Singh vs Gayatri Jhansi Raodways Limited Authorized Signatory (10 Jul 2019).
What should I read with Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 12 (Grounds for challenge), section 13 (Challenge procedure), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 14, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.