KOSHY Vs. K S E BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE scope of the power of the Court under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to grant leave to revoke the authority of an appointed arbitrator arises for consideration in this Civil Revision. THE point is whether leave will be granted only if actual bias of the arbitrator is established or the existence of a circumstance which is likely to bias the arbitrator is enough.

(2.) THE petitioner was a contractor of the respondent. Kerala State Electricity Board. As his claims were not settled he invoked the arbitration clause in the contract and moved the Sub Court, Trivandrum, for the appointment of an arbitrator. By order dt. 22-7-1980, the court appointed the respondent as arbitrator. After the above order, the petitioner came to know that the respondent-Board has issued a letter dt. 21-4-1979 to their Chief Engineer deciding most of the issues to be settled by arbitration against the petitioner. This fact was not brought to the notice of the court when the appointment of the arbitrator was made. So, the petitioner moved the court under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for leave to revoke the authority of the arbitrator appointed and to appoint another arbitrator. By the order impugned, the court rejected the petitioner's request holding that the petitioner ought to have raised his objection at the time of the appointment of the arbitrator.

(3.) IN Amarchand v. Sree Ambica Jute Mills (AIR 1966 SC 1036) it has been held :-