JAS PAL SINGH Vs. NSIC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd April, 2009 dismissing the objections preferred by the appellant/petitioners against the Award dated 8th September, 1999 by the Sole Arbitrator.

(2.) THE brief facts of this appeal, also illustrative of the issue involved in the other appeal, are as under:

(3.) THE only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in respect of the legality of the award qua Clause 31 is that the above agreement stipulated clearly that the Sole Arbitrator had to be either the Chairman of the Corporation or an officer of the corporation. His plea is based upon the fact that during the arbitration proceedings, the named Arbitrator, Sh. Rameshwar Dutta retired and since on the date of the Award, that is on 8th September, 1999, Sh. Rameshwar Dutta was not an officer of the Corporation, the award was vitiated. The appellants after receipt of notice from the respondent instead of clearing the arrears as claimed in the notice filed a suit at Chandigarh for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent/claimant. The respondent/claimant moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alleging before the court that the suit was not maintainable and that it should stay the suit. The respondent appointed Shri Ramesh Dutta, Estate Officer in NSIC Ltd. vide letter dated 18th May, 1998 as the Arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration clause. The arbitration appointed by the respondent proceeded with the claim and passed an award on 8th September, 1999 thereby allowing the claims of the claimant/respondent. The learned Counsel, in support of the above plea has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Prabhat Kumar & Bros. and Anr. : AIR 1994 Supreme Court 649 to contend that the above judgment clearly states the position of law where during the interregnum of the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator gets superannuated or retired. The learned Counsel relied upon paragraph 5 of the said judgment which reads as follows: