LAWS(SC)-1995-7-32

BHUPINDER SINGH BINDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 28, 1995
BHUPINDER SINGH BINDRA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Leave granted.

(2.) It is settled law that Court cannot interpose and interdict the appointment of an arbitrator, whom the parties have chosen under the terms of the contract unless legal misconduct of the arbitrator, fraud, disqualification etc. is pleaded and proved. It is not in the power of the party at his own will or pleasure to revoke the authority of the arbitrator appointed with his consent. There must be just and sufficient cause for revocation. There is no general power for that Court to appoint an arbitrator unless the case falls within the relevant provisions of the Act not will the Court make an appointment where the arbitration agreement provides a method by which appointment is to be made, Clause 25A expressly provides appointment of the named officer by designation who was appointed in terms of and had entered upon the duties immediately. Revocation of arbitrator's authority is exactly equivalent to removal which would be done on specified grounds like misconduct or omission to enter upon duties within time etc. Both parties by consent may revoke the authority of the arbitrator but that is not the case herein. The contract clearly indicates that the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, Chandigarh or any one acting as such at the time of reference within 180 days,i.e. six months from the date of making final payment of the contractor is the designated officer chosen voluntarily by the parties. It was impugned in the O.P. filed in the Court of the Senior Judge that the officer had delayed for considerable period in making the award and that, therefore, it necessitated the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act.

(3.) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the impugned order in Civil Rev. No. 516/91 has pointed out that the contractor had consented for adjournment and that there was no allegation of misconduct of the arbitrator in adjudicating the dispute. On the other hand, the High Court recorded that :