JRE INFRA PVT. LTD Vs. DEENDAYAL PORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an interesting question relating to applicability of Sec. 12 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1996' for short) to assert that nomination made by the respondent No. 1 - original claimant is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 12(5) of the Act, 1996. The person sought to be appointed as an Arbitrator by respondent No. 1 has a previous involvement in the very same case and the appointment, as such, is hit by the Sec. 12(5) read with item No. 16 of the Seventh ('VII') Schedule.

(2.) Though in the petition, various averments have been made of the appointment being contrary to the provisions of Sec. 11(6) of the Act, 1996, but all the stated points have not been pressed during the course of arguments. This Court, is called upon to answer the only questions whether the Arbitrator appointed by respondent No. 1 is incapacitated or ineligible to act as an Arbitrator ? Whether disqualification in Seventh ('VII') Schedule, pressed into service by the petitioner would be attracted in the facts of the instant case ?

(3.) It may be noted that owing to some disputes and differences between the parties, a three member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted comprising of two party - nominated Arbitrators and one Presiding Arbitrator. The tribunal was later reconstituted on account of the sudden demise of the Presiding Arbitrator. While the arbitration proceedings were at the stage of final hearing, one of the nominee Arbitrator for respondent No. 1 had recused himself. In light of the recusal, the reconstituted tribunal by the procedural order dtd. 11/8/2023 had adjourned the matter sine die with the liberty to get the matter revived on the nominations of the Arbitrator, by respondent No. 1.