WAZIR CHAND KARAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I propose to dispose of suit No. 1706Aofl984 filed undersections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and objections incorporated in I.A. No. 953 of 1986 filed under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the award dated 12th September, 1984 in the said suit. The objections are opposed on behalf of the Union of India.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this order are that vide orders dated 2nd August. 1982 in Suit No. 11 A of 1980 the matter in dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 Union of India was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri O.N. Endley, defendant No. 2 and after said Shri Endley published his award on 12th September, 1984 this suit under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act was filed with a request that defendant No. 2 should be directed to file the award and the record of the arbitration proceedings in court whereafter this court may proceed in accordance with law. On the filing of the said suit notice was issued to defendant No. 2 calling upon him to file the award and the award was accordingly filed by the arbitrator along with arbitration proceedings. After the usual notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties, I.A. No. 953 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiff by way of objections under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. THE said objections are opposed on behalf of the Union of India. Upon the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed vide my order dated 13th November, 1986: "1. Whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings ? 2. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grouods mentioned in the objections ? 3. Relief".

(3.) IN Union of INdia v. M/s. Ghaziabad Railway Station AIR 1972 Allahabad 34, a Division Bench of that court had also set aside the award where the arbitrator bad accepted the claim made by one of the parties before him but without affording notice of that claim and opportunity of a hearing to the other party and it was held that the arbitrator was guilty of committing judicial misconduct.