VIDYA GROVER Vs. D D GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VED Raj and D.D. Grover were brothers. They were jointly doing some businesses etc. since 1967. VED Raj died on 17.1.78 leaving behind mother, wife and a daughter. Widow and daughter filed arbitration cases u/s 20 against surviving partner (brother) on the basis of arbitration clause in partnership deeds. 2 married sisters were joined as parties on their application u/0. 1 R. 10, CPC. On 8.4.80, parties jointly requested appointment of Shri I.D. Dua (Retired) as arbitrator. They also agreed that widow and daughter would be paid by D.D. Grover Rs. 3000.00 p.m. for using factory premises. Arbitrator entered upon reference on 27.8.80 and as he could not conclude within 4 months, parties jointly got time extended u/s 28. Last extention expired on 31.3.82, Petitioners applied for extention. D.D. Grover did not join them and instead applied for removal of arbitrator and revocation of reference on the plea that proceedings were being protracted and arbitrator was acting beyond jurisdiction by entertaining pleas of fraud and forgery against him. After detailing above facts, judgment proceeds:

(2.) SECTION 5 of the Act lays down that the authority of an appointed arbitrator shall not be revocable, except with the leave of the court, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no stipulation in the arbitration aggreement itself for the revocation of the authority of the arbitrator appointed by the court with the consent of both the parties, Hence, his authority is irrevocable except by leave of the court. The SECTION itself is silent as to the ground on which such leave can be granted. However, it is well settled that leave to revoke is to be granted in a sparing and cautious manner, for the parties are, particularly speaking not to be relieved of the obligation entered into by them to have their disputes decided by a tribunal of their own choice merely because anyone of them entertains an apprehension that the arbitrator's decision may go against him. In the well-known treatise on the subject "Russell on Arbitration" (16 Edition, page 54), the following proposition of law is enunciated :

(3.) IT may be pertinent to notice here that according to the procedure adopted by the learned arbitrator with the consent of the parties corrections were normally made at the time when the deposition of a witness was read over to him/her and he/she was called upon to sign the same. This was normally done on the dates subsequent to those on which the deposition was recorded. No doubt the delay in the instant case was inordinate but it is somewhat difficult to take exception to what has been said by the learned arbitrator in his order dated 9.1.82 regarding the inexpediency of his expressing any considered opinion in this behalf. He is right in saying that the copies of the original deposition having been furnished to the parties the same can be taken into consideration while appraising the testimonial value of her deposition at the stage of final arguments. Obviously the learned arbitrator has kept his mind open on this issue. IT may well be hoped that he will enventually take a completely detached view of the matter while appraising her evidence in the light of other material on the record. Hence, it would be pre-mature to hazard an inference Vidya Grover vs. D.D. Grover at this stage that serious miscrarriage of of justice is likely to ensue due to the arbitrator permitting the alleged correction in the deposition of Manju Gover. At any rate, no legal misconduct can be attributed to the learned arbitrator which would warrant his removal or justify revocation of reference.