HASMUKHLAL H DOSHI Vs. JUSTICE M L PENDSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT.

(2.) RESPONDENTS waive service. By consent, heard forthwith. All the petitions involve similar facts and common question of law and therefore are being decided by a common judgment.

(3.) THE petitioners by Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 102 of 2000 in Arbitration Suit No. 1930 of 1987 has prayed that the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court by an Order dated 2nd August, 1996 stands terminated. Similar, relief is prayed for in Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 104 of 2000 in respect of Arbitration Suit No. 1928 of 1987 where appointment was made by order of this Court dated 2nd August, 1996. The same relief has also been prayed for in Arbitration Petition (Lodg.) No. 105 of 2000 in Arbitration Suit No. 1926 of 1987 wherein appointment was done by an order dated 2nd August, 1996. The petitioners have invoked section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is contended that from the facts on record, circumstances have arisen, which give rise to justifiable doubt as to the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator. In these circumstances, it is pointed out from the pleadings as set out in the petitions and supported by the documents, the petitioners have been able to make out a case of bias. This must specifically result, it is contended, in this Court exercising its jurisdiction under section 14 of the Act. Let me at this stage itself, point out, that I do not propose to set out the facts based on which the petitioners have based their contentions. The objections as to impartially are firstly, based on proceedings before the Arbitrator was appointed, which objections were known to the petitioners when they appointed the Arbitrator. The other objections are after a particular stage in the Arbitral proceedings. I say particular stage because before that the petitioners had reposed full faith in the Arbitrator and had called upon him to decide the matter on the material as it stood. The facts will be dealt with, if the need arises, after considering the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. Once a challenge is determined under section 13 (3) of the Act, it is argued, this Court cannot in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 14 of the Act, set aside or interfere with a decision of the Arbitral Tribunal taken under section 13 of the Act. It is contended that on a perusal of section 5 of the Act read with sections 12 and 13 any ground as contained in section 12 (3) can only be a subject matter of a challenge under section 13 and once that challenge is decided and if not accepted the only remedy for a party aggrieved is to agitate the point whilst challenging the award under section 34 of the Act.