SUSHIL KUMAR RAUT Vs. HOTEL MARINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An impasse has been created with two arbitrators conducting parallel arbitration proceedings. One is the appointing Authority under the arbitration clause and the other his appointee. The appointing Authority (R-3) has revoked the authority of the appointee ?" (R-3). Whether he could do so and who out of the two is the real arbitrator is the question.

(2.) This interesting question arises in the following facts. The appellant is a builder/contractor whereas respondent No.1 is a partnership concern. Respondent No.2 is the appointing authority under the arbitration agreement and respondent No.3 is the arbitrator appointed by him.

(3.) Respondent No.1 awarded a work contract for its hotel at Agra to be executed by respondent No.1. The contract contained an arbitration clause which reads as under: ?o18. Settlement of Disputes Any dispute between you and Owner's project Manager/Resident Engineer regarding true interpretation of this work order/contract or about any other matter, payment etc. will be referred to Mr. R.A. Agrawal, Chief Engineer of the Company for his sole arbitration. He may act himself or may appoint any person to act as a Sole Arbitrator. Decision given by the Arbitration shall be final, conclusive and binding on both the parties. ?