SARASWAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. JAYNIT AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11 May 2012, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 appeared and made his submissions. I have already heard the counsel for the Petitioner on 27 April 2012. The counsel for Respondents was absent on that day and on earlier occasion also as recorded in Order dated 27 April 2012. To give one more opportunity the matter was kept for final disposal on 4 May 2012 in chamber. The matter was further kept on 7 May 2012 for arguments on behalf of Respondents. The matter thereafter was listed on 10 May 2012 in chamber, but on request of the counsel for Respondents, the same was listed by consent on 11 May 2012. On 11 May 2012, heard both the parties and the matter was closed for judgment.

(2.) After hearing both the parties and considering the rival submissions so raised, I am inclined to interfere with the Award based upon the reasons already recorded in the Order dated 27 April 2012.

(3.) The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenged award dated 24 September 2009 passed by the Arbitrator Mr. R. A. Dalvi who was appointed under Section 84 of the Multi State Co operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, "MSCS Act"). The basic ground is raised on the foundation of Arbitration Case No. ARB/SCB/001/2009, wherein an application under Section 13 of the Arbitration Act, the contesting party raised specific objection based upon the averments, that the same Arbitrator, in other, as many as more than 40 50 matters disqualified and withdrew from the Arbitration proceedings. The Petitioner Disputant bank is the same. Those averments against the Arbitrator, therefore, applies squarely in the facts and circumstances of this case also. Admittedly, the Petitioner never raised such objection in the present case but specific grounds are raised in the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrator is not made party by contending that no relief whatsoever, is sought against him. The allegations, even if so raised based upon the record of the bank, though in other matters, but directly concerned with the Arbitrator, as well as, the disputants. Therefore, those grounds and objections so raised with regard to the disqualification of the Arbitrator, in my view, and as contended, goes to the root of the matter.