LAWS(BOM)-2019-5-67

SAWARMAL GADODIA Vs. TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

Decided On May 15, 2019
Sawarmal Gadodia Appellant
V/S
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the above Arbitration Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 ('the Act'), the Petitioner herein has impugned four separate Awards all dated 25th February, 2019, passed in four separate arbitration proceedings by the Sole Arbitrator - Advocate Shri P.C. Phalgunan.

(2.) The above Arbitration Petitions were called out for admission on 2nd May, 2019 at 03.00 p.m., when none appeared for Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ('the Respondent Company'). In view thereof, an Order was passed directing the Respondent Company to appear before this Court at 05.00 p.m.

(3.) At 05.00 p.m. Mr. Harangad Singh Bhogal, Legal Manager of the Respondent Company appeared in person. Since the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondent Company was the same in all the four arbitration proceedings and this Court being aware of the fact that most of the companies, who are in the business of lending finance, are, whilst appointing Arbitrators not following the provisions of the Act, but without disclosing this fact in the disclosure mandatorily required to be made under the Act, are appointing the same Arbitrator in hundreds of matters; sometimes in more than 1000 (one thousand) matters, enquired from Mr. Bhogal the number of arbitration proceedings in which the said Advocate Shri P.C. Phalgunan is appointed as an Arbitrator by the Respondent Company. Again since in the Minutes prepared by the Arbitrator, nothing was mentioned about the fees payable to the Arbitrator by the parties, this Court also enquired from Mr. Bhogal whether the Arbitrator had fixed any fees payable to him by the parties prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings. Mr. Bhogal informed the Court that he has joined the Respondent Company only three months back and therefore he is unable to answer these queries raised by the Court. He therefore informed the Court that he will call his Advocate, who will be able to do so.