The petition was initiated under the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which governs the timely conduct of arbitration proceedings. Specifically, the petitioner argued for the need to extend the arbitrator's mandate due to ongoing disputes, while simultaneously seeking the replacement of the arbitrator. The respondent, however, raised objections against the substitution, claiming there was no valid basis for such a drastic measure.

Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Suruchi Mittal, asserted that the court possessed the authority to substitute the arbitrator without rigid constraints, advocating for a broad interpretation of Section 29A(6). In contrast, counsel for the respondent, Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, contended that substitution should only occur under specific circumstances, particularly when an arbitrator is unduly delaying proceedings.

A significant point of contention in the case revolved around allegations of bias against the arbitrator. The court underscored that bias must be specifically alleged and substantiated with concrete evidence, rather than merely suggested in arguments. The judge referenced established legal precedents, reinforcing that any claim of bias must be explicit and supported by the record, rather than based on subjective feelings.

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no substantiated claim of bias against the arbitrator and that the existing proceedings did not exhibit undue delay. The judge recognized the necessity for an arbitrator to manage proceedings judiciously, noting that while the duration of cross-examination by the respondent might seem excessive, it did not constitute grounds for substitution.

The ruling emphasized the importance of trust in the arbitration process, yet cautioned against allowing subjective discomfort with an arbitrator's decisions to lead to repeated requests for substitution. This perspective is vital to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

In its decision, the court extended the arbitrator's mandate for six months, reflecting a balance between facilitating ongoing arbitration and recognizing the established standards for substituting arbitrators. The ruling serves as a reminder of the rigorous thresholds that must be met to justify such a significant change in the arbitration process, reinforcing the principle that an arbitrator’s role is to impartially oversee proceedings, irrespective of the parties' individual feelings about their performance.

This case illustrates the complexities involved in arbitration proceedings and the court's commitment to uphold the integrity of the arbitration framework. The careful consideration of each party's arguments highlights the nuanced interplay between judicial oversight and the autonomy of the arbitration process.