TEJA SINGH SOORMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A certain dispute between the applicant and the North-Eastern Railway was referred to an arbitrator in terms of the contract The arbitrator asked the applicant to state his claim and the claim was stated and then the arbitrator called upon the applicant to deposit a certain amount as his fees. The applicant did not deposit the' amount and let the statutory period for the making of the award expire. The arbitrator 'then asked the parties to first get the order of the court for extending the time to make the award. He did not act further in the matter because his fees had not been paid. ' the applicant thereupon put in an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act before the civil Judge, praying for the removal of the arbitrator on account of his misconduct. The misconduct alleged was that the arbitrator demanded fees from one of the parties only, insisted on payment before acting further as an arbitrator and, in effect, neglected to deliver the award. The opposite parties supported the arbitrator's conduct and the learned "civil Judge held that the arbitrator was justified in demanding his fees, that the amount of fees was not exorbitant but was reasonable and that the arbitrator could demand payment of his fees before proceeding further with the arbitration proceedings. He considered Sections 14 and 38 of the Arbitration Act and found that there was nothing in the act which compelled an arbitrator to act without payment of fees in case he wanted fees. He, therefore, rejected the application, holding that the arbitrator had not misconducted himself. It is against this order that the applicant has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) WE are of opinion, that this order is not open to revision under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. The learned Civil Judge acted within his jurisdiction. It is not disputed that he had jurisdiction to deal with this application, under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. What is contended is that he came to a wrong conclusion and did not pass the order which he would have passed, had he come to a correct conclusion, and that, therefore, he did not either exercise jurisdiction vested in him or acted with illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. We do not agree with this contention in view of a decision, of the Supreme court in -- 'keshardeo v. Radha Kissen and others', AIR 1953 SC 23 (A ). To come to an erroneous conclusion, does not amount to acting with material irregularity or illegality and a court has as much jurisdiction to pass a correct order as a wrong one.

(3.) IN view of the above, we reject this application'.