AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Ranjeet Saksena, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashok Nigam, Addl. Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Neeraj Chitravanshi.
This Arbitration Application has been filed U/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for change of Arbitrator.
When the petition was filed on 11.11.2011, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that this arbitration application is not maintainable. The Court had granted Mr. Ranjeet Saksena, some time to argue his case on maintainability. On the next date, he had given a copy of an unreported judgment, in which the petition was entertained by the Supreme Court and the arbitrator was changed.
Objection was raised by Sri Ashok Nigam that this is an unreported judgment and he could not lay his hands on the judgment. Time was granted to him to go through the judgment. The date was fixed in the case for today.
Today Mr. Saksena has informed that the said judgment has been reported in Denel (Proprietary Limited) Vs. Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, , Ministry of Defence, decided on 9.1.2012. In para-16 of the report, it has been held as follows:
Keeping in view the observations made above, I have examined the facts pleaded in this case. I am of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be necessary and advisable to appoint an independent arbitrator. In this case, the contract is with Ministry of Defence. The arbitrator Mr. Satyanarayana has been nominated by DGOF, who is bound to accept the directions issued by the Union of India. Mr. Satyanarayana is an employee within the same organization. The attitude of the respondents towards the proceedings is not indicative of an impartial approach. In fact, the mandate of the earlier arbitrator was terminated on the material produced before the Court, which indicated that the arbitrator was biased in favour of the Union of India. In the present case also, Mr. Naphade has made a reference to various notices issued by the arbitrator, none of which were received by the petitioner within time. Therefore, the petitioner was effectively denied the opportunity to present his case before the Sole Arbitrator. Therefore, the apprehensions of the petitioner cannot be said to be without any basis.
Mr. Saksena has also informed that after filing of the petition, arbitrator has suddenly speeded up the proceedings and award can be delivered any moment. He has further informed that the sole arbitrator has declined to give any further date despite the fact that he was informed about the date fixed in this case as 3.2.2012.
Since the Court is not also available after lunch, due to formation of Full Bench in other matter, complete arguments have not been heard.
However, Mr. Ranjeet Saksena insists that if the arbitrator is not stopped from delivering award, the purpose of filing of the writ petition would be frustrated even before hearing of the matter. He further insists that after the Supreme Court judgment, this Court may show some indulgence in the matter.
Accordingly, list this case on 17.2.2012.
In the circumstances of the case, this Court is left with no option except to direct the sole arbitrator not to deliver award till the next date of listing i.e. 17.2.2012; and it is ordered accordingly.