SANDIPBHAI ASHOKBHAI PARMAR Vs. ARBITRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Arbitration Petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that petitioner and respondent No.2 formed a partnership firm on 1/8/2008 in the name and style of "Ronak Developers". The said partnership business was for purchasing of land and developing residential houses as well as commercial complex. In connection with aforesaid partnership, the petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a Deed of Partnership dtd. 4/9/2008. According to the petitioner, the said Deed is containing an Arbitration Clause 13, which is reproduced hereunder:

(3.) During the passage of time, the dispute arose between petitioner and respondent No.2 and then respondent No.2 invoked an Arbitration Clause, as referred to above. By issuance of notice to the petitioner on 23/8/2019 inter alia informing the petitioner that respondent No.2 is appointing respondent No.1 as an Arbitrator and also called upon the petitioner to appoint his Arbitrator. It is the case of the petitioner that without adhearing to the requirements of Sec. 11 of the Act, respondent No.2 straightaway referred the matter to the Arbitrator, namely, respondent No.1 by filing statement of claim. Such appointment of respondent No.1 is unilateral and is in apparent breach of Sec. 11 of the Arbitration Act and as such the very initiation of arbitration proceedings gets vitiated. On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioner that after initiation of arbitration proceedings by the Sole Arbitrator i.e. respondent No.1, the petitioner became aware that learned advocate for the claimant i.e. present respondent No.2 and the learned Arbitrator had worked together in one office as advocates in various cases. It was further inquired by the petitioner that the petitioner could find one vakalatnama filed in one civil suit before learned Civil Court at Anand wherein there is a signature of learned advocate for claimant as well as learned Arbitrator appearing for same party. The petitioner also came across a telephone diary of Anand District Advocate wherein besides the column of name of learned Arbitrator as Advocate, respondent No.1 has mentioned details of name of learned advocate of claimant as well as his office phone numbers, which fortify that learned Arbitrator had a working relationship with learned advocate for claimant in past. Even joint vakalatnama is also placed on record to contend this and therefore, this information which has been received has raised a justifiable doubt as to independence and impartiality of learned Arbitrator. As such being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the appointment of Arbitrator and for seeking appointment of another Arbitrator, the present petition is brought before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Provisions of Arbitration Act .