VISHWA NATH BHARTIYA Vs. RUKMANI DEVI KANODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present, suit has been filed by Vishua Nath Bhartiya (hereinafter described as the petitioner") invoking Sections 14 and ,17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of the court and for a decree, to be passed in terms of the same. The petitioner had been appointed as the arbitrator and he states that he had entered into the reference. Parties, in pursuance of the notice issued had appeared before him on 20/11/1980. On 23/11/1980, he had conducted the arbitration proceedings and had passed the award.

(2.) Notice was issued to the respondents. Objector (Respondent No.9) Shri Madan Mohan Kanodia has filed the objections. It has been asserted that the award has been made without following the basic norms of the Judicial procedure and in violation of the principles of natural Justice. The arbitrator did not act in a Judicial planner and the enquiry was made by him in a slip-shod manner. He conducted himself in a manner, which did not subserve the interest of Justice and in that manner had misconducted himself. Plea has been raised that no hearing had been given nor even the notice of hearing was issued by the arbitrator. The arbitration agreement is purported to have been signed on 10/11/1980 on a stamp paper and accepted by the arbitrator on 13/11/1980. On the said date, the arbitrator was not in Delhi. The arbitration agreement never been sent to him at Calcutta where the arbitrator lives. Similarly, it is asserted that Pushpa Gupta does hot live in Delhi and was not in Delhi on 10/11/1980.

(3.) Plea has further been raised that the arbitrator was Known to the family of the respondent No.5. On 22/11/1980 the wedding of Hari Prakash, son of respondent No. 5 was to be performed. There was a ceremony on 21/11/1980 at 10.30 a.m. The arbitrator had also been invited. He cane to Delhi on 21/11/1980. Respondent No.5 had booked two rooms in Hotel Maidens and the arbitrator enjoyed the hospitality of respondent No.5. Even fare for coning from and going to Calcutta was paid by respondent No. 5.