HRD Corporation v GAIL (India) Limited

Facts

• HRD Corporation had a dispute with GAIL under a supply contract
• GAIL argued that the claim was time-barred (limitation expired)
• GAIL sought termination of the arbitrator's mandate under S.14 arguing the arbitrator was "unable to perform functions" because the claim was time-barred
• The question was whether expiry of limitation terminates the arbitrator's mandate

Issue

1. Whether an arbitrator's mandate terminates under S.14 when the underlying claim is allegedly time-barred.

Held

• S.14 relates to inability to act (de jure/de facto incapacity, undue delay).
• Time-bar of the claim is a substantive defence on merits, not a ground for termination of mandate.
• The tribunal has jurisdiction under S.16 (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) to decide whether the claim is time-barred.
• Limitation is a question for the tribunal, not a jurisdictional issue terminating the mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's mandate terminates under S.14 only for inability to perform or undue delay. Whether a claim is time-barred is a question of law on merits that the tribunal itself must decide under its competence-competence power (S.16). It does not render the arbitrator unable to act.