MS SHEETAL MARUTI KURUNDWADE AGE 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, INDIAN INHABITANT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 511 Vs. METAL POWER ANALYTICAL (I) PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, SHARES AND REGISTERED AS UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed under Sec. 9 and Sections 12(3) and 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Arbitration Act"). The Petitioner is the Respondent or opposite party in an arbitration. The 1st Respondent is the claimant. The Notice of Motion seeks ad-interim reliefs in terms of the Petition. By consent, I have taken up the Petition itself for hearing and final disposal. Mr Lulia for the Petitioner says he has no objection since he is canvassing a question of law and statutory interpretation.

(2.) The Petition raises a narrow but important point under the Arbitration Act after its 2015 amendment. The question is about the scope and purport of the newly introduced provisions regarding the appointment of arbitrators and challenges to their continuance. Sections 12(1), 12(3), 12(5) and item 3 of Schedule VII of the amended Arbitration Act fall for consideration. Specifically, whether an arbitrator should stand disqualified or be removed in these circumstances, viz.: the arbitrator is a practicing counsel; he is briefed by various law firm in different matters; one such law firm is the one engaged by one of the parties to the arbitration; the counsel himself has never been briefed by that, or any other, law firm for that particular party, or any of the parties to the arbitration; the arbitrator clarifies in writing that he has never been briefed to appear for that particular party, though he is sometimes briefed in other matters by the law firm in question. Mr Lulia would have it that the fact that the arbitrator, in his practise as counsel, receives with irregular periodicity briefs from the law firm representing a party to the arbitration is sufficient to disqualify him from acting as an arbitrator. It matters not, he says, that the counsel has never acted for that particular client. The counsel is on the 'payroll' of the law firm. Mr Lulia says he urges no bias against the present arbitrators; he only says that such an appointment is contrary to the amended Act.

(3.) The facts are few. Respondent No. 1 to this Notice of Motion and Petition is the claimant before the arbitral tribunal. Joined as Respondent No. 2 is an Advocate of our Court of many years standing, Mr Snehal Shah. He was appointed the presiding Arbitrator. Respondent No. 3 is Mr Farhan P Dubash, another Arbitrator. Respondent No. 4 is one V.S. Bhadkamkar, the third member of the arbitral panel. The application is directed against Mr Shah and Mr Dubash in the following circumstances. The Petitioner, Sheetal Maruti Kurundwade, was appointed as a Trainee Calibration Engineer by the 1st Respondent company on 11th Aug. 2011. She worked there for five years and resigned on 19th March 2016. The company filed Arbitration Petition No. 1061 of 2016 under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act on 12th Aug. 2016. On 30th Aug. 2016, SJ Kathawalla J granted ad-interim relief restraining the Ms Kurundwade from disclosing confidential information, that being the subject matter of the 1st Respondent's Sec. 9 Petition.