GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. UNIQUE CONSTRUCTION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interesting question for consideration arising from this appeal filed against the impugned order dated 10-12-1996 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes, Court, Ghaziabad on the application of the respondent, made under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (briefly, the Act) is whether the court below on the facts and circumstances of this case was right in exercising the power to appoint an arbitrator.

(2.) The parties entered into an agreement which contained an arbitration clause (Annexure '1' to the affidavit accompanying the stay application made by the appellant). Referring to the arbitration clause Sri V.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the parties agreed that the vice Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) will be the sole arbitrator and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction under Section 20(4) of the Act to appoint any other arbitrator. His submission is that so long as the parties have agreed about an individual for being appointed as an arbitrator and if the arbitrator is named in the arbitration , agreement; then the court has no power to appoint any other arbitrator and that the Court may assume jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator different from the one who is named in the arbitration agreement only when the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement, fails or refuses to discharge the duty of arbitrator. The portion of the arbitration clause insofar as is material for the purpose of this case is reproduced below :

(3.) The question is what is the true interpretation of the delineated portion in the arbitration clause.