RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in this objection petition is: Whether the award made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is liable to be set aside, if oral hearing is denied to one of the parties ?

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed.

(3.) IT so happened the arbitrator who was earlier seized of the dispute and had entered into arbitration was transferred and his successor took over the charge from him. The impugned award was made by the successor on 24.06.2004. The arbitrator made this award without hearing oral arguments. Even though the petitioner moved an application before the arbitrator on 7th April, 2004, saying that when the case was fixed on 5th April, 2004 at Solan, the petitioner along with his counsel appeared on that date and requested for an adjournment for addressing oral arguments in terms of Section 24 of the Act. This request was declined and, therefore, the application, for hearing oral arguments was made, so that the applicant may address the arbitrator along with the law supporting his claim. This application too was rejected by the arbitrator on the ground that he was not obliged to grant oral hearing unless agreed by both the parties. He also took a view that pleadings were finally closed on 9th May, 2002, with the consent of both the parties, 5th April, 2004 was fixed to confirm the said proceedings. Therefore, no such oral hearing could be granted.