MOHD RAFI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case an Award has been passed almost two decades ago but because of the filing of Objections by the Union of India, the Award is yet to be given effect to. By these Orders I shall decide/dispose of these Objections.

(2.) The first question which has been raised by the Objector/Union of India is that the Award is liable to be set aside for the reason that the authority of the Arbitrator has been revoked by the Union of India. The contention is that the Arbitrator, Shri Kishan Chand, had been notified by the Objector's letter dated 17th December, 1986 that his authority stood withdrawn. The arguments were concluded by the adversaries on 19.12.1986 as the impugned Award has been subsequently made and published on 23rd January, 1987. The Award specifically states that the said letter dated 17th December, 1986 was received by the learned Arbitrator after the final hearing, and an endorsement of receipt on 27.12.1986 can be found on the Arbitrator's copy of the letter dated 17.12.1986. This has not been controverted before me nor there is any reason to disbelieve the statement.

(3.) The decision of Arjun Singh Versus Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993 immediately comes to mind which decision is to the effect that once final arguments have been addressed in a case, no further hearing is contemplated enabling the parties to communicate in any manner with the Court. The irrepressible logic of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, is that since the Court (read Arbitrator in the present instance) could pronounce the final verdict at the very moment when arguments conclude, but if this is not done for any reason, the hiatus between this event and the pronouncement of the final Orders/Award is only notional. If this logic is extrapolated to the facts of the case, it will be evident that a subsequently attempted removal of the Arbitrator would have no legal efficacy whatsoever. In this case I have the advantage of the decision of learned Single Judge in Mohinder Pal Mohindra Versus Delhi Admn. & Anr., 37 (1989) Delhi Law Times 345 in respect of this very Arbitrator. As has been argued before me, it had been contended on the previous occasion also that the Arbitration Clause did not permit a retired government servant from continuing as the Arbitrator. This argument was rejected and the Court additionally found that the parties had in any event acquiesced in the arbitration continuing after retirement. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Arbitrator was specifically named by the Chief Engineer who was the competent authority. My attention has further been drawn to the fact that the Respondents had specifically authorised the Arbitrator to continue with the arbitration immediately after his retirement.