SHANKLESHA CONSTRUCTION Vs. ASHOK MOHANRAJ CHHAJED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rival parties have both approached this Court invoking Sec. 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') for extension of mandate of the learned arbitrator. The only dispute between the parties pertains to the fact that the petitioners in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.24453 of 2023 i.e. M/s. Shanklecha Constructions and others, are also seeking substitution of the learned arbitrator. In that light, the said petitioners have invoked Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act also, claiming that the learned arbitrator has been rendered de facto unable to perform her functions. This is seriously disputed by the petitioner in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.368 of 2023 i.e. Ashok Mohanraj Chhajed, who in turn claims that no ground is made out either under Sec. 14 or under Sec. 29-A(6) of the Arbitration Act for substitution of the learned arbitrator. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.24453 of 2023 i.e. M/s. Shanklecha Construction and others as the petitioners and Ashok Mohanraj Chhajed as the respondent.

(2.) The facts leading upto filing of these two petitions are that a partnership deed was executed on 21/7/2017 between the parties. Disputes arose between the parties and upon invocation of arbitration, an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration Act was filed. By an order dtd. 19/3/2019, this Court disposed of the said application by appointing a sole arbitrator, being a former Judge of this Court. The said order was silent on the aspect of fees to be charged by the learned arbitrator.

(3.) On 11/4/2019, a preliminary meeting was held by the learned arbitrator. It was specified therein that the learned arbitrator would charge fees as per Schedule IV to the Arbitration Act. The modality for payment of fees was specified as per the claim, while the modality for payment of fees for the counter-claim was to be indicated later on.