KALPANA MAJUMDAR Vs. BINAL KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these proceedings under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks reference of the disputes under the agreement to a person other than the arbitrator named in the agreement.

(2.) THE arbitration clause provides as follows : -

(3.) IT is the petitioner's contention that disputes have arisen between the parties which are covered by the arbitration agreement and that the named arbitrator has disqualified himself from entering upon the reference relating to the disputes. The petitioner's contentions as to the named arbitrator being disqualified are found in her letter requesting an alternate arbitrator to be appointed. In such letter of April 13, 2007 the petitioner, inter alia, alleged that the disputes arose in connection with a booking at the newly-constructed building made by the daughter of the named arbitrator following which proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act were instituted. The petitioner complains that the named arbitrator is interested in the matter and the named arbitrator had lodged a caveat. According to the petitioner, upon the named arbitrator having acted in such manner and being directly interested in the subject matter of the disputes, there was no question of such named arbitrator presiding over a reference. Upon such appreciation of the situation, the petitioner suggested the name of another person as arbitrator and required the other parties to the agreement to either concur in such appointment or suggest the name of any other arbitrator.