14 April 2025 Legal Updates

  SUBSTITUTION OF ARBITRATOR CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT WHEN PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY WITHDREW FROM ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS  

a. Case Title:

• Ashok Kumar Bhuinya Proprietor of A.K. Enterprise vs. State of West Bengal

b. Court:

• High Court at Calcutta (Original Civil Jurisdiction)

c. Date of Decision:

• April 8, 2025

d. Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Shampa Sarkar

Summary

This case involved an application for appointment of a new arbitrator following the alleged termination of mandate of the original arbitrator. The petitioner (Ashok Kumar Bhuinya) had entered into a work contract with the State of West Bengal that contained an arbitration clause.

Key Facts:

The petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings before the 2017 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An officer of the respondent (State) was appointed as arbitrator. The petitioner filed a Statement of Claim in January 2012. In May 2012, on the alleged advice of State officials, the petitioner wrote a letter withdrawing from the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator continued to schedule hearings, but the petitioner did not participate. Approximately 10 years later, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

Petitioner's Arguments:

• The arbitrator failed to conduct proceedings diligently and without undue delay.
• The State had assured settlement of claims if arbitration was withdrawn.

Respondent's Arguments:

• The petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn from proceedings and abandoned his claims
• The petitioner was granted extension of the contract and completed additional work
• The application was not maintainable after 10 years

Court's Decision:

The Court dismissed the application on the following grounds:

• Section 15 of the Arbitration Act was not applicable as the arbitrator had neither recused nor withdrawn from office
• The grounds for terminating the arbitrator's mandate were not satisfied
• The petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn from the proceedings through written communications
• A party cannot "resurrect a dead proceeding" after 10 years of withdrawal
• The petitioner never communicated any desire to retract his withdrawal
• The application was time-barred with no explanation for the 10-year delay

MANDATE OF ARBITRATION UNDER SECTION 29-A OF ARBITRATION ACT CAN BE EXTENDED BY HIGH COURT ONLY WHEN ARBITRATOR IS APPOINTED BY IT.

a. Case Title: --

b. Case no:

• Civil Revision Petition no.739/2025

c. Court:

• High Court of Telangana

d. Date of Decision:

• April 10, 2025

e. Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Hon'ble Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

Key Facts:

The arbitrator was originally appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Commercial Court at Hyderabad had extended the arbitrator's mandate for 6 months (from September 24, 2024, to March 23, 2025) under Section 29A. By the time the High Court heard the petition, the extended mandate had already expired on March 23, 2025. Despite the issue becoming academic, the petitioner insisted on a determination of the legal question involved.

Legal Issue:

Whether the Commercial Court (rather than the High Court) had jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitrator who was originally appointed by the High Court ?

Court's Analysis:

• The Court examined Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which defines "Court" as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court
• The Court interpreted Sections 11(6) and 29A of the Act together to determine which court had jurisdiction to extend an arbitrator's mandate
• The Court concluded that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6), only the High Court (and not any subordinate court) has jurisdiction to extend that arbitrator's mandate
• The Court reasoned that allowing different courts to intervene at different stages would disrupt the hierarchical framework of the Act
• The Court distinguished Section 42 (which requires all subsequent applications to be filed before the court where the first application was filed) as applying to disputes concerning arbitration agreements or proceedings after commencement, not to appointments under Section 11

Court's Decision:

The Court held that the Commercial Court had erroneously extended the arbitrator's mandate, as this power rested exclusively with the High Court that had originally appointed the arbitrator. However, since the extended mandate had already expired, the issue had become academic, and the Court made no order regarding substitution of the arbitrator.

Key Legal Principles Established:

When an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6), subsequent applications for extension of mandate under Section 29A must also be filed before the same High Court

KERALA HIGH COURT CAUTIONS MEDIA HOUSES AGAINST PUBLISHING UNVERIFIED ONE-SIDED STORIES TO BOOST TRP. 

a. Case Title:

• Sindhu S & Ors. v. State of Kerala

b. Court:

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

c. Date of Decision:

• April 11, 2025

d. Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen

Summary

This case involved a Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed by six accused persons seeking to quash criminal proceedings against them related to a news program about drug abuse that allegedly violated laws regarding protection of child victims.

Key Facts:

The petitioners were employees of Asianet News channel who had produced and telecasted a program titled "Narcotics is a dirty business" on November 4, 2022 (TV) and November 10, 2022 (YouTube).

1. The prosecution alleged that the accused had:

• Used the actual voice of a child victim in a POCSO case (Crime No.989/2022) without consent
• Had another child (daughter of the 4th accused) impersonate the victim in the video
• Violated the victim's identity protection under POCSO Act
• Committed forgery, conspiracy, and other offenses

2. The petitioners contended that:

• The program was made with the noble intention to create awareness about drug abuse among youth
• They had taken precautions to protect the identity of the child victim
• The voice used was "doctored" and "sentences jumbled" (not used in original form)
• Other news channels had used the victim's original voice and video without blurring, but only Asianet was prosecuted

Legal Issues:

• Whether the petitioners disclosed the identity of a child victim in violation of Section 23(2) of the POCSO Act
• Whether the petitioners committed forgery and other offenses under the IPC
• Whether they illegally used a child for activities in violation of Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act

Court's Analysis:

The Court examined each allegation carefully and found:

1. Regarding POCSO Act violation:

• The victim's own statement confirmed her voice was used with "sentences jumbled"
• No name, address, photograph, family details, school or neighborhood were disclosed
• The voice was doctored/modified, not used in its original form
• Laboratory analysis could not conclusively establish voice similarity

2. Regarding forgery and other IPC offenses:

• Essential ingredient of "intent to cause damage or injury" was missing
• The program's intention was to create public awareness about drug abuse
• Using doctored voice did not constitute forgery

3. Regarding Juvenile Justice Act:

• Using a child in a news feature program with a socially beneficial purpose is not an "illegal activity"
• The identity of the child who appeared in the video was not disclosed

Court's Decision:

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the Final Report and all proceedings against the petitioners, concluding that:

• No prima facie case was made out for any of the alleged offenses
• The program had a socially beneficial purpose of alerting the public about drug abuse
• Reasonable precautions were taken to protect the identity of the actual victim

The Court also made broader observations about media ethics, noting that channels should exercise greater diligence in reporting by investigating allegations thoroughly and presenting both sides of any story to allow viewers to determine the truth independently.