GOPAL SINGH Vs. ASHOKA LEYLAND FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Sections 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act, 1996') for termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and for substitution of the Arbitrator.

(2.) MR. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no cause of action had arisen at Chennai, arbitration could not be held at the said venue. Mr. Kohli emphasised that the agreement had been executed at Delhi, the loan had been disbursed at Delhi, repayment of partial loan had been done at Delhi and the alleged breach had also taken place at Delhi. In this context, Mr. Kohli relied upon a judgment of the Calcutta High court in the case of Tata Finance Limited Vs. Pragati Paribahan and Others reported in 2001 (1) RAJ 145 (Cal.) wherein it has been held as under :-

(3.) HE further submitted that the Arbitrator was biased against the petitioner inasmuch as even after the petitioner had pointed out blanks in the claim statement, the Arbitrator had once again sent another set of the claim statement containing the same blanks. Mr. Kohli stated that the Arbitrator had been repeatedly 'threatening' the petitioner that in case, he did not participate in the proceedings, the petitioner would be proceeded ex-parte.