MUSSAFAR SHAH Vs. M M T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeking revocation of the authority of the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Justice H.L. Anand, a former Judge of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Romy Chacko in support of the petition. The two grounds urged in support of his contention for revocation of the authority of the Arbitrator are : (i) the respondents have nominated Mr. Justice H.L. Anand as their nominee Arbitrator in some other arbitration matters, also (ii) the said Arbitrator has given legal opinion to the respondents. Based on these two grounds, Mr. Chacko submits that the petitioner had made out a ground for nurturing a reasonable apprehension that the said Arbitrator would be biased and the petitioner would not get justice from him. He has also relied on the decision of the apex court in "Nandial Co-operative Spinning Mills Vs. K. Mohan Rao", (`1993, (ii) Supreme Court cases, 654), to the effect that justice must not also be done but seem to be done. The cited case does not advance the case of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Sanjiv Puri, who is present in Court on behalf of respondent No. 1, submits that he does not wish to file the reply, but would assist the Court otherwise. Mr. Puri informs that in the case, the arbitration proceedings commenced sometime on or about 1994 and there have been at least 40 hearings, including adjourned hearings before the learned Arbitrator. It is significant that there is no allegation of the alleged bias of the arbitrator manifesting itself in the course of these hearings. These facts are not disputed before me very fairly by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The mere fact that the Arbitrator has also been nominated as an Arbitrator in some other matters by the respondent Corporation, which happens to be M.M.T.C., a large corporation having numerous litigations, will not by itself, make out any ground for revocation of the authority of the Arbitrator. Secondly, the mere fact that the Arbitrator has had at one time or the other given a legal opinion to the respondent No. 1, will not disqualify him from acting as an Arbitrator. It is not urged before me that the opinion to which the petitioner refers, is an opinion with regard to the subject matter of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his information is only that some opinion has been given. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the arbitrator has not given any opinion on the subject matter of the present dispute. Based on such vague pleas, no inference of the Arbitrator being based or petitioner having a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Arbitrator can be drawn. Petition is wholly mis-conceived and deserves rejection is accordingly dismissed.