ANUP KUMAR GOYAL Vs. CHANDERKALA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the Arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings as alleged in the petition under section 30 of the Arbitration Act and if so, its effect ?

(2.) WHETHER the impugned award has been improperly procured or the same is otherwise invalid as alleged by the defendants ? If so, its effects. 2. Mr Arun Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the objectors was brief but to the point. He sought the setting aside of the award on three grounds. His first contention was that plaintiff No. 1 bad been making frequent visits to Lucknow to meet and influence the arbitrator and that it was during one of those visits that he had managed to procure the award. His second ground of attack was that the arbitrator had not followed any formal procedure and by neither recording any evidence nor maintaining a record of the proceedings, he had violated the principles of natural justice. In this connection it was submitted that the meeting held by the arbitrator on 22.1.88 was not joint of the parties but in fragments in as much as he had held on that day, a separate and exclusive meeting with plaintiff No. 1. It was also pointed out, in support of the contention, that no measurements had ever been taken of the immovable property in dispute to the notice of or in the presence of the objectors. Lastly it was contended that, in any case, the award was inequitable in as much as the plaintiffs had been awarded much more space than the others and in this connection my attention was drawn to the plan marked which forms part of the award and which outlines the portions awarded separately to the parties.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, Rup Narain Goyal, objector who has entered into the witness box as OW-3 has deposed that during the arbitration proceedings the plaintiffs had been ften visiting Lucknow. It is also true that as per the statement of Mr. D.N. Sarup, Office Supdt. of the Indian Airlines (OW-1), plaintiff No. 1 had been issued RAO forms numbers with regard to his Staff On Leave passages pertaining to Delhi-Lucknow-Delhi route in 1985-86 and on 10.3.81 besides two such passages in 1987 and one in 1989, but then, question is as to whether this leads the objectors anywhere ? Does this evidence lead to the conclusion that all those visits were utilised or even aimed at to meet the arbitrator and to procure a favourable award? Plaintiff No. 1 has deposed that he has been to Lucknow since his childhood and that the number of such visits may come to 80 or 90. It is also in his statement that besides the arbitrator he has other relatives also living in Lucknow besides a friend for whom, in 1987, he had taken medicines. It appears from the evidence that he had been visiting Lucknow even before Mr. Gupta has been appointed as the sole arbitrator and lhat his visits continued even after the filing of the award. This being the position and there being absolutely no evidence to show that on any such visit he had met the arbitrator or had even attempted to meet him or to exploit his visits for the purpose of influencing the arbitrator and procuring the award, positively nothing can be allowed to be made out of those visits. I say so, because even the objector Rup Narain has admitted in his examination-in-chief itself that he had not been in Lucknow at the time of any of the visits of plaintiff No. 1 to that place. To crown it all he states, and I quote : "I can only guess that he was visiting Lucknow with a view to meet the arbitrator who was living in Lucknow during those days." This being the state of evidence, I find myself one with Mr. Jaitley that objectors arc merely crying wolf.