RAM RAM NIRANJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of both the cases as well as issues involved being identical, both the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IA No.4468/86 in Suit No.880 A/86 and IA No.4469/86 in Suit No.879-A/86 are filed by respondent/UOI under Sections 30 and 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "Act") which are the objections to two Awards both dated 30/03/1986 by Sh.H.C.Sharrna arbitrator.

(3.) Disputes having arisen between the parties and there being an arbitration clause as per which both the parties had to nominate their arbitrator, petitioner nominated Sh.H.C.Sharma as its arbitrator and respondent/UOI nominated Mrs.R.Laxmanan as its arbitrator. Mrs.R,Laxmanan resigned on 10/02/1985 and on her resignation petitioner's advocate wrote letter/notice dated 14/12/1985 to the respondent/UOl requesting respondent to appoint another arbitrator in her place within fifteen days from the date of receipt of said-letter/notice failing which co-arbitrator Sh.H.C .Sharma would act as sole arbitrator.There was some delay on the part of respondent/UOI in appointment of its arbitrator which it alleges was due to some administrative reasons. A letter dated 16/01/1986 was addressed by respondent/UOl to petitioner stating that appointment letter would be issued after 1 7/01/1986.Thereafter vide letter dated 21/01/1986 respondent/UOl nominated Dr.B.N.Manni, Additional Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law as the co-arbitrator in place of Mrs.R-Laxmanan.However, before this date, the counsel for petitioner had already sent letter dated 8/01/1986 to the effect that since respondent/UOI had not nominated its arbitrator,Sh.H.C. Sharma had become the sole arbitrator,Dr.B.N.Manni vide letter dated 2 7/01/1986 addressed to Sh.H.C.Sharma informed him about his being appointed as co-arbitrator and asked him to come to his office in any of the working day in initiating the arbitration proceedings.However, the petitioner's advocate sent another notice informing the respondent/UOI that appointment of Dr.Manni was of no consequence.Sh H.C.Sharma also proceeded on the basis that he had become the sole arbitrator and sent communication dated 22/01/1986 to the petitioner as well as the respondent/UOI stating that petitioner had filed statement of account in January,1984.He accordingly called upon to respondent/UOI to file its counter claim by 7/02/1986 and fixed the hearing on 10/02/1986.The respondent/UOI replied vide letter dated 30/01/1986 stating that it had already appointed Dr.B.N.Manni as its arbitrator and inspite of this appointment, Sh.H.C.Sharma was treating himself as sole arbitrator and this he was doing at his own risk.Sh.H.C.Sharma responded by sending communication dated 4/02/1986 stating that as Dr.Manni was not appointed/nominated within the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of legal notice from petitioner's advocate, he was entitled to proceed with the matter as per Section 9 of the Act.He further stated that he was postponing the date of hearing fixed as 10/02/1986 vide his letter dated 22/01/1986, to 25/02/1986 to enable the respondent/UOI to get the delay in nominating Dr.Manni as arbitrator condoned by court of law.The respondent/UOI sent another communication dated 24/02/1986 to Sh.H.C.Sharma in response to his aforesaid letter dated 4/02/1966 stating that as directed by his letter dated 4/02/1986 necessary steps for condonation of delay in appointment of Dr.Manni as co-arbitrator were being taken before the competent court of law and Sh.Sharma was requested to adjourn the case on 25/02/1986, However, on 25/02/1986 Sh.Sharma went ahead with the matter by proceeding with the reference ex-parte.Oral evidence of Sh.Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala, was recorded and arguments were also heard on the same date and the case was closed for making and publishing the awards.Thereafter on 30/03/1986 impugned award was passed in both the Cases.