G D ARORA Vs. INDERJIT ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point I have to decide in this .suit is whether an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable in a case where the appointed arbitrator after having started to function and after having entered upon the reference at a later stage neglects or refuses to proceed with the reference.

(2.) The parties to the suit are closely related to each other. Certain disputes had arisen between the parties in respect of the partnership firms, namely. M/s Arora Auto & Electric Trading Co.. M/s. Paramite Cable Co. (Arora Trading Corporation). M/s. Udyog Sheel. M/s. Orient Cable Industries. in which one or the other party to the suit was associated cither as a partner or sole proprietor. The said disputes were referred for adjudication to Shri J.P.Bajaj as an arbitrator on 11th August. 1983. Some of the disputes are stated to have been resolved before the arbitrator. However, no award was made and published by him. After the time for making and publishing the award had expired, a petition was filed in this Court being OMP No.96/84 under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time to enable the arbitrator to make and publish his award. By an order dated 4th February. 1986. this Court, with the consent of the parties. revoked the authority of Shri J.P. Bajaj as an arbitrator and appointed Shri P.L. Rahi as the arbitrator. It is stated in the petition that Shri P.L. Rahi continued to hold arbitration proceedings, however, on 4th October. 1990. in a suit which had been filed by the respondent No.l in the Courts at Bangalore. the petitioners came to know that Shri P L. Rahi had declined to continue as an arbitrator. The present petition was. therefore, filed on 24th July. 1993 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator.

(3.) In reply, the respondent stated that the petition was barred by limitation inasmuch as the arbitrator vide his letter dated 1st June. 1990 addressed to all the parties to the suit had expressed his inability to proceed with the arbitration and according to the respondents, the present petition having been filed more than three years after the arbitrator having expressed his inability to proceed with the reference, was barred by limitation. The petition was also stated to be barred by doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence and waiver and by the conduct of the petitioners. It is also stated that Mr.P.L. Rahi had expressed his inability to proceed with the arbitration because the petitioners w ere not cooperating with him and had not filed their statement of claims in spite of the registered letters having been written by the arbitrator to them. It is also stated that the respondents had filed some civil suits in the Courts at Bangalore for rendition of accounts and recovery of their shares which are the same disputes which were sought to be referred for decision of the arbitrator. In the replication, the petitioners have denied the receipt of the letter dated 1st June, 1990 from the arbitrator They have. therefore, denied that the petition was barred by limitation. It is the case of the petitioners that they received a letter dated 4th October, 1990 from their advocate from Bangalore and it was only from that letter that they came to know about the reluctance shown by the arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration.