J K ENTERPRISE Vs. WIN NEDICARE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two petitions Nos. OMP 6/95 & OPM 62/94 one for removal of arbitrators and another for extension of time.

(2.) The applicant in OMP No.6/95 filed under Sections 5 & 11 of the Arbitration Act seeks removal and revocation of the authority of the two Arbitrators in the following terms:

(3.) By notice dated 19th July, 1993 the two arbitrators appointed by the parties informed the parties that they have fixed the hearing for 30th July, 1993 for arguments and final disposal (vide annexure A-2) and on 30th July, 1993 the hearing continued and a major part of the counter claim for a sum of Rs.37,72,848 of the respondent No.1 relating to claim No.5 was allowed to be withdrawn. The arguments continued and case was adjourned from time to time. On 19th February, 1994 at the beginning of the meeting Shri Ramji Srinivasan, Co-Arbitrator strongly recommended the parties to reach a settlement in the matter in the presence of the Arbitrators then and there. The petitioner was not prepared for any talk of settlement. Shri Ramji Srinivasan was insisting for talk of settlement. To Co-Arbitrator Shri G.S.Chatterjee seemed to be in silent agreement. Shri Ramji Srinivasan, Co-Arbitrator was showing an uncalled for interest in the matter and an attempt was made by Shri Ramji Srinivasan to compel the proprietor to agree to one sided settlement to the detriment of the petitioner. Consequently due to strong resistance on part of the petitioner and his counsel the alleged settlement could not be forced through. After the session was over, Shri Ramji Srinivasan actually threatened the proprietor of the petitioner firm that since he has not agreed to settle the matter the petitioner would be taken to High Court and shall have to face the consequences thereof. Such utterances on the part of the arbitrator raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the petitioner and the petitioner, therefore, reasonably apprehend that the learned Arbitrators are biased against the petitioners. On this basis the revocation of the authority of the arbitrator is sought.