N C MITTAL Vs. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. The applicant seeks a direction that the mandate of the Arbitrator has terminated.

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement for development of software services. Disputes arose; they were referred to arbitration in terms of a condition in the contract agreed upon by the parties. This proceeding is premised on the manner in which the Arbitrator dealt with the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner's application under section 17 was listed on 22/5/2007. The Arbitrator, however, refused to consider it and thereafter indicated that in the event of a defect being cured, he would consider the same. Subsequently, after irtimation to the parties, it is contended that the Arbitrator had decided the matter in the petitioner's absence and had not even intimated its result to him. The petitioner alleges that he came to know about outcome of the application from the learned counsel for the respondent. Other grounds too were urged.

(3.) HAVING regard to the limited scope of Section 14, this Court is of the opinion that the Arbitrator should consider the application under Section 17 and pass afresh orders after hearing the parties. As far as the other grounds of challenge are concerned, Section 14 enacts that the Court can about the mandate of the Arbitrator being terminated if he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay or he withdraws from his office or the parties agree to the termination of his mandate. None of these contingencies exist in this case.