GWALDAS MUNDRA Vs. ANAND RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 12(5) read with Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the respondent nos.1 to 3 i.e. arbitral tribunal were not eligible to assume office as arbitrators in view of their statutory disability in terms of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act and seeks appointment of a retired Judge of this Court in substitution in terms of Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) Mr.Seksaria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 raises a preliminary objection about maintainability of this arbitration petition on the ground that under none of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, this petition can be entertained by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the order dated 19th July 2016 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. He submits that the respondent nos.1 and 2 being relatives of the parties, they are not eligible to act as arbitrators in view of the bar under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. He submits that though the respondent nos.1 and 2 were the named arbitrators in the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties, in view of nonobstante provision of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, the respondent nos.1 and 2 could not act as arbitrators. He submits that since the respondent nos.1 and 2 were not qualified to act as arbitrators, the appointment of the learned Presiding Arbitrator by these two arbitrators is also without jurisdiction and is illegal.