V. RAVICHANDRAN Vs. PUSHPAVALLI SURESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.S. Krishnan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Aravind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Hari Shankar Mani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

(2.) Mr. M.S. Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the outset would submit that the Award suffers from unreasonableness. He would submit that the Arbitrator had just copy-pasted the written submissions of the Respondent/Claimant by only modifying the first few words of the Written submissions. He would submit that under the Written submissions, the Respondent had opened with the words humbly submitted, the same had been replaced by the Arbitrator by the words, which would indicated that it is the findings, reasoning of the Arbitrator. He would therefore submit that there has been no application of mind on the part of the Arbitrator. On the conduct of the Arbitrator, he had also alleged bias and would plead that if this Court was of the opinion to call for reasons from the Arbitrator in view of the biased, it may not be proper but would request this Court to set aside the award and appoint a new Arbitrator to hear the parties concern and pass an award based upon the proceedings that had culminated upto the filing of Written submissions by respective parties. He had also relied upon the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd. Mumbai v. Pratibhas S. Tiwatane and another, 2010 (1) MhLJ 761, and contend that there should be a clear distinction between the submissions and the reasons. A submissions of the party in the form of Written submission cannot be lifted bodily by the Judicial Officer incorporating them as his own reasons. Even if the Judge is to agree with the submissions of one party, the reasons and language must be in own reasons. In that context, he would submit that the Arbitrator had lifted bodily the Written submissions of the Respondent and he had not given any reasons as to why the Written submission of the Respondent is acceptable and the Written submissions filed by the Petitioners was not acceptable. He would also submit that the Arbitrator had not treated the parties equally and only for that reasons, he would submit that if this Court may come to the conclusion that the matter has to be remanded back, then it should be remanded back to the independent Arbitrator.

(3.) Countering his arguments, Mr. Aravind Pandian the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondents would submit that there is no error on the part of the Arbitrator to bodily lift the contentions in the Written submission of the Respondents to be the findings of the Arbitrator. According to him, the said conduct of the Arbitrator in accepting the submissions made by the Respondent and rejecting the submissions made by the Petitioner is fair and acceptable. In that context, he had also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, 2015 (1) CTC 191 (SC) : 2015 (3) SCC 49; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (4) CTC 854 (SC); and Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate, 2015 (14) SCC 609. By placing reliance on the Judgments, he would submit that the verbatim reproduction of submissions does not necessarily indicate bias, it is shown that the Arbitrator had arrived at the just and reasonable conclusion based upon the submission and evidence presented by both parties. He would also submit that the Judgment of the Bombay High Court relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would not be directly applicable to an Arbitral proceedings, as it dealt with only the Judicial process and therefore, he would pray this Court to dismiss the Petition.