NAVAL KISHORE Vs. INDIAN CEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. M. P. Nos. 9/2005, 10/2005, 669/2008, 670/2008, 671/2008 and 682/2008 have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "act, 1996") challenging the common arbitral Award dated 15th September, 2004. Consequently, the present batch of cases is being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) MR. Naresh K. Daksh, learned counsel for petitioners namely the guarantor and the legal heirs of deceased Principal borrower submitted that the Arbitrator had been appointed in the present case by an incompetent person. He stated that by virtue of Clause 18 of the Hire Purchase agreements dated 01st November, 1995, 08th February, 1995 and 04th september, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "h. P. Agreements"), the managing Director of the owner i. e. M/s. Aruna Sugar Finance Limited had the exclusive authority and power to appoint a sole Arbitrator. Clause 18 of the H. P. Agreements is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

(3.) MR. Daksh stated that in the present case the power to appoint the arbitrator had been exercised by the Chairman of the respondent-claimant company. In this connection, Mr. Daksh relied upon the respondent's letter dated 01st February, 2000. The relevant portion of said letter reads as under: