NSSL LIMITED Vs. HPCL-MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sections 14 and 15 read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). The relief sought in the petition is directed towards respondent no.2, who is the arbitrator appointed by respondent no.1 vis- -vis disputes raised by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks termination of the mandate of respondent no.2 and appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties herein.

(2.) It must be said at the very outset that the petitioner has raised several grounds in the petition. The grounds raised can, however, be segregated into two broad categories. The first category comprises of grounds which pertain to the alleged bias and the purported ineptness of respondent no.2 in conducting the proceedings; perhaps because of the fact that he is not a person with a background in law. The second category pertains to the manner of appointment of respondent no.2. In respect of this category, challenge is confined to, the appointment of respondent no.2 not being made by the designated appointing authority, as defined in the contract obtaining between the parties.

(3.) Therefore, the only ground which I am called upon to deal with is, the ground raised, with regard to, the alleged defect in the appointment of respondent no.2. In order to deal with this issue, the broad facts, which are necessary, for the said purpose, are referred to hereinafter :-