K C GOYAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sections 5,11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 for the removal of defendant No.3 as an arbitrator and declaring the proceedings null and void and without jurisdiction on the ground that there was no specific appointment of respondent No.3 by the Engineer Member by name and as such the respondents were not entitled to appoint the arbitrator by designation. It is contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. View was taken by this court in M/s Strength & Sports Builders (P) Ltd vs. DDA, OMP No.152/98 that it was wrong for the Engineer Member to appoint an arbitrator by designation as the arbitrator ought to have been appointed by name and therefore the appointment by way of designation is null and void. In the above referred case the arbitrator was removed on the said ground.

(2.) Clause 25 of the Arbitration clause of the contract provides that the Engineer Member shall appoint a "person" to adjudicate upon the dispute of the parties. Instead of appointing a person by name, the Engineer Member appointed Superintending Engineer as the Arbitrator. The designation of an office does not come within the definition of "person". "Person" is an individual human being and by no stretch of imagination, the "Office" or "Designation" though manned by persons comes within the definition of a person. Thus the appointment of Superintending Engineer by way of designation by the Engineer Member was not in accordance with the provision of Clause 25 nor was it in accordance with the provision of law.

(3.) The petition is allowed. The appointment of the Superintending Engineer is set aside. Engineer Member is directed to appoint the person by name as an arbitrator within two weeks, the proceedings, if any, conducted by the Superintending Engineer are hereby declared as null and void and quashed.