MUKESH AGGARWAL Vs. ATUL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for terminating the mandate of the arbitrator on the grounds that the claimant/respondent no.1 Atul Gupta is an advocate and visiting the court complex in the Karkardooma Court, Delhi where the respondent no.2 i.e. the arbitrator is a practising lawyer. The respondent no.1/the claimant and the arbitration/respondent no.2 are therefore colleagues. That the petitioner has also observed during the hearing attended by his counsel Mr.Mahendra Singh, Advocate on 05.04.2014, 10.05.2014, 19.05, 2014, 24.05.2014, 31.05.2014 and 30.06.2014 that the arbitrator used to call Sh.Atul Gupta/the claimant as "Are Atul sit by my side" while there was no sitting arrangement for his advocate Mr.Mahendra Singh. The relationship between them is very informal. The arbitrator/respondent no.2 is nominee of respondent no.1/the claimant. It is submitted that though the claimant is not actively practicing as an advocate but he is an advocate in Karkardooma Court. The arbitrator had not been supplying copy of the various documents and orders and supplied only on a formal application. The petitioner had paid a fee of Rs.1 lakh to the arbitrator while the respondent no.2/the claimant has not paid any fee. The various orders passed by the arbitrator would show that she is biased/prejudiced against the petitioner and had also threatened to close the defence of the petitioner and also imposed heavy cost of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent no.1 is supplying the legal matters i.e. challan etc. to the arbitrator which is adding in her additional income. It is also contended that as per the settled principle of law if the arbitrator or a judge is prejudiced towards one party, then he should not try that case because no man shall be a judge in his own cause. It is further contended that the petitioner had never approached the arbitrator with any ulterior motive. It is submitted that an application had been moved before the arbitrator requesting her to recuse from the matter on these grounds but she dismissed the said application of the petitioner and had made certain observations which were false. It is submitted that the observation made by the arbitrator that she had been approached by the petitioner for giving benefits to him, is false observation. It is submitted that an observation that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics is also a false observation. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 is biased and he has lost faith in her and therefore her mandate be terminated as she has become de jure and some other person be appointed as an arbitrator.

(2.) The reply has been filed by the respondents to the application in which all these contentions have been denied. It submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Rejoinder is also filed by the petitioner reiterating the contentions of the petition.

(3.) I have heard arguments and perused the record.