CROWN BUILDTECH PVT LTD Vs. BHUPINDER LAL GHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14th July, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.8248/2009 and 8249/2011 in Arbitration Petition No.470/2009 and 471/2009 respectively. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is manifest that IA Nos. 5823/2011 and 5824/2011 have been jointly filed by the parties duly signed by them and their respective counsels supporting by the affidavit that the Court may allow payment of additional fee to the learned sole arbitrator in accordance with the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Arbitrator?s Fees) Rules, to be shared equally after deducting amount of Rs.2 lakhs which was the lump sum fee fixed by the Court in the two cases. After the joint applications were filed, the appellant herein sought to withdraw its consent and alleged bias against the learned arbitrator.

(2.) The learned Single Judge referred to the agreements entered into between the parties, the appointment of the arbitrator on 15.2.2010, the sum fixed towards fees, the commencement of proceedings before the learned arbitrator, the applications filed on consent, the statement of the appellant herein expressing its unwillingness to pay any additional fees to the learned arbitrator, the issue of bias raised against the learned arbitrator as he changed the rules in the middle of the proceedings, the conduct of the counsel before the learned arbitrator, the order dated 28th March, 2011 whereby the learned arbitrator had declined to recall the witness, the issue raised with regard to the relevance of the recall of the said witness, the conduct of the parties before the learned arbitrator and the power of the Court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 1996 Act?) and came to hold as follows:

(3.) After so holding, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to make payment of the fees of Rs.1 lakh along with secretarial expenses received from the learned arbitrator forthwith. He also took note of the fact that as the learned arbitrator has tendered his resignation, it would be appropriate that 50% of the fees computed in the manner prescribed therein is paid to the learned arbitrator in each case. The learned Single Judge has further held that there was no reason to direct the learned arbitrator to recuse himself while expressing the view that there is no reason to entertain any doubt about the independence and impartiality of the learned arbitrator. Being of this view, he proceeded to direct as follows: