AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Neeladri Rao, J.—All these revision petitions are considered together as the same point is involved.
The respondent in each of these cases filed O.P. u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of an arbitrator alleging that there is vagueness in regard to the panel referred to in the agreement the court of competent jurisdiction refused to act as arbitrator, incases where it was as the arbitrator under G.O.Ms. No. 430, dated 24-10-1983. In each of the cases, the respective petitioner therein had given names of three persons who can be considered for appointment as the arbitrator. In all these cases, the Court appointed one of the persons referred to in the respective petitions, as the arbitrator. The said orders are challenged in these revision petitions.
The learned counsel for the respective respondents herein submitted that no bias was alleged against anyone of those arbitrators, and the respective arbitrators already entered into reference and some of those respondents filed claim petitions before arbitrators.
Normally the disputes have to be resolved by the Civil Courts, But it is open to the parties to refer the matters to the arbitrator chosen by them. The arbitrator will be chosen out of confidence in him. But when there is misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or when the arbitrator is not in a position to take up the case, or for some such cause consider the parties have to move the court u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of another arbitrator. In such cases, it is not proper for the petitioners in petitions u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act to give the name of any person who can be, appointed as an arbitrator, for the respondent therein may have a suspicion that such person may be biased and at time it may be embrassing for the respondent in such O.P. to state about it. It is not as if that the choice should be only amongst the persons who were referred to in the petition. If the respondent also has no objection for appointment of any one of them as an arbitrator, the Court is free to appoint him, otherwise it is not just and proper for the court to appoint any person referred to by the petitioner as arbitrator. The very basis for resolving disputes by the arbitrator is on the basis of confidence which the parties may repose in the person chosen as the arbitrator. No one can be appointed as an arbitrator against the wishes of the party. So, to be fair in such matters, it is proper for the court not to appoint anyone of the persons that are referred to in petition filed u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act, it is not necessary for the Court to embark upon enquiry as to whether any one is wanting in impartiality, Capability etc. It is only on the basis of the said principle, the impugned orders have to be modified. It may not be mistaken or misunderstood that the court is notifying the orders on the ground of want of competency or impartiality. But suspicion with regard to the bias cannot be valid out and that itself is suftcient for modifying the impugned orders and there should not be any enquiry whether there is bias or not.
The learned counsel for the respondent in CRP No. 1360/1991 and others submitted that the retired High Court Judges or retired District judges may be appointed as arbitrators. The learned Government Pleader has not stated that the retred High Court Judges or retired District judges should not be appointed as arbitrators in these cases. Therefore, I appoint Sri C.Kondiah as arbitrator in CRP. No. 360/1991, Sri Alladi Kuppu Swamy as arbitrator in CRP No. 1422/ 1991, Sri K. Ramachander Rao as arbitrator in CRP. No. 2100/1991, Sri P.Chenmkesava Reddy as arbitrator in CRP No. 2006/1991; Sri K. Punniah as arbitrator in CRP No. 2196/1991; Sri S. Madhusudhan Rao as arbitrator in CRP No. 2197/1991; Sri P. Ramachandra Raju as arbitrator in CRPNo. 2198/1991 and Sri C. Sri Ramulu as arbitrator in CRP No. 2337/1991.
Accordingly the impugned orders are modified by substituting the names of arbitrators. As it is a case of mere modification, the awards have to be filed only in the respective courts but not in the High Court.
The revision petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Government Pleader''s fee is fixed at Rs. 300/- in each case.