KANAN DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 02-02-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), South Tripura, Udaipur whereby he rejected the objections filed by the appellant under section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.

(2.) The main argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the award is illegal since the Arbitrator was biased against the appellant. It is urged that the Arbitrator Sri P.K. Roy was so inherently connected with the construction of the work out of which the dispute arose that by exercising the jurisdiction of Arbitrator, he has virtually become a Judge in his own cause.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that an agreement was entered into between the parties whereby the appellant agreed to construct a school building for the State. Disputes arose between the parties. In view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, the contractor approached the Court for appointment of Arbitrator. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Tripura was appointed Arbitrator, but the Court while appointing the Chief Engineer as Arbitrator also issued a direction that in case the Chief Engineer is unable to carry out the arbitration proceedings, he may appoint some Superintending Engineer as Sole Arbitrator in the case. Sri P.K. Roy was appointed the Sole Arbitrator.