J S SOOD Vs. SAAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short question arises for consideratiom in this appeal. The appeal is from an order of the learned Judge on the original side by which he dismissed an application filed by the appellant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) ON 21-8-1979 the appellant entered into a financing agreement with the respondent. This agreement contained an arbitration clause in respect of disputes arising under the agreement. Clauses 10 and 18 of the agreement provided, inter alia, that all disputes arising out of the agreement shall be referred to, and decided by, Sri Manohar Singh Bist, sole arbitrator. The clauses clearly state that Sri Bist was an employee of the appellant but purported to declare that the respondent had absolute confidence in his integrity and that it was, indeed, at the respondent's insistence that Sri Bist was being named sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under the agreement between the parties.

(3.) BUT does the mere fact that the arbitrator, named in the agreement, is an employee of one of the parties furnish sufficient cause for refusing a reference ? We think not. Russel has two interesting passages on this topic. At page 116 (Nineteenth Edition), after referring to the paramount importance of the rule universally accepted that "Judicial tribunals should be; honest, impartial and disinterested", the author says :