AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Mongia, J.—An application u/s 5 read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Arbitration Act was filed by the present petitioner in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh for removing the Arbitrator, Shri Sarup Singh, Respondent No. 3. However, during the pendency of that application, no order was passed by the Court staying the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Resultantly, the arbitration proceedings continued and an award followed. Objections to the making of the award a rule of the Court, which were filed by the petitioner, having been dismissed, the award was made a rule of the Court on 8th May, 1995. By the same order, the application of the petitioner for removal of the Arbitrator was also dismissed.
It is not disputed that an appeal against the order by which the award has been made a rule of the Court is pending before the District Judge, Chandigarh and the next date fixed is 6th June, 1996. The present revision petition is against that part of the order by which the application of the petitioner for removal of the Arbitrator has been dismissed.
I have heard the counsel for the parties. I am of the view that since there was no order staying the proceedings before the Arbitrator when the application was filed by the petitioner for removal of the arbitrator, the Arbitrator continued with the arbitration proceedings and since the award has been made a rule of the Court, the application for removal of the Arbitrator does not survive and has really become infructuous. It is the Arbitrator who continuing with the proceedings who has to be removed from proceedings u/s 5 read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Indian Arbitration Act and when he becomes functus officio after the making of the award, the question of his removal does not survive. However it is always open to the objector to raise all the points for setting aside the award or the decree that follows on the making of the award the rule of the Court that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings which were sufficient to pass an order of removal of the arbitrator and, therefore, the award or the decree is liable to be set aside.
For the view I have taken in the matter, I am of the opinion that the application of the petitioner for removal of the Arbitrator having become infructuous, this revision petition has also become infructuous. However, as observed above, it will be open to the petitioner to raise all the points, as indicated above, before the Appellate Authority that the award was not liable to be made rule of the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of the serious allegations made against the Arbitrator in the application for his removal and that application having been served on the Arbitrator, his continuance with the arbitration proceedings thereafter amounted to misconduct. It will be open to the petitioner to'' raise this point before the Appellate Court.
It is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the making of the award as a rule of the Court, as observed in earlier part of the order, is fixed before the District Judge for 6th June, 1996. He is directed to dispose of the appeal on 6th June, 1996 and in case for any reason it cannot be disposed of by him on that date, it should be disposed of on or before 31st July, 1996.
Subject to the observation made above, this revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Copy of this order be given dasti on payment to the parties.