SANKAT PRATAP SINGH Vs. BHOPAL MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is clear that respondent No. 2 delivered an award dated 18-7-2009 in favour of respondent No. 1 herein and against the petitioner. That award is under challenge before the Trial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the said proceedings, petitioner has impleaded the arbitrator as respondent/non-applicant No. 2 by name. An objection was raised that it was unnecessary to implead the arbitrator in the judicial proceedings instituted by the petitioner in the Trial Court. That objection was sustained by the order impugned and a direction was issued to delete the name of arbitrator as he is not a necessary party. IT is this order of Court below which is the subject matter of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN Union of INdia Vs. M/s. Orient Engg. & Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 2445, Their Lordships approved the observations of Walsh, ACJ, in Khub Lal Vs. Bishambar Sahai, AIR 1925 All. 103, to the effect that ordinarily an arbitrator should not be summoned as a witness unless grounds are specifically made out justifying his being summoned/called as a witness and not in routine course or in routine manner. We may also refer to the decision of Their Lordships in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1999) 2 SCC 577, wherein the practice of impleading judicial officers as a party in the writ petition under Article 226 or SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution of INdia was strongly deprecated. The same analogy would be applicable to a quasi judicial authority like an arbitrator who has rendered the award. There is no need or legal requirement to implead an arbitrator as a party to the proceedings pending before the Trial Court. IN view of the above, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court while passing the order impugned. There is no merit and substance in the writ petition.