#abandonment of arbitration

The Bombay High Court ruled that nine years of inactivity in arbitration, without any communication or effort to revive proceedings, does not automatically constitute abandonment. Only where conduct clearly indicates an intention to relinquish the reference can the mandate be terminated under Section 32(2)(c), barring appointment of a substitute arbitrator. This sets a high threshold for termination, protecting parties from premature extinguishment of arbitration rights.

Supreme Court rules that abandonment of earlier arbitration proceedings under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC operates as res judicata, barring a subsequent Section 11 application. The decision clarifies procedural finality in arbitration, impacting parties seeking multiple arbitrator appointments for the same dispute.