9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Arbitrator's authority. 2. Allegation of bias against the Arbitrator. 3. Refusal to allow witnesses. 4. Arbitrator's personal interest in the case. 5. Fee schedule and expenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of Arbitrator's Authority: The appellant, Lucky Home Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, sought the revocation of the Arbitrator's authority and the appointment of a new Arbitrator, preferably a retired Judge. The application was initially dismissed by the learned Single Judge, leading to this appeal. The appellant argued that the Arbitrator had become disqualified due to bias. 2. Allegation of Bias Against the Arbitrator: The appellant presented several grounds alleging bias: - First Ground: On 20th April 1992, the Arbitrator suggested that the contractor could pay Rs. 300 on behalf of the appellant, allegedly indicating that the Arbitrator had made up his mind to favor the contractor. The court found that the appellant did not raise any objection at the time and continued participating in the proceedings, implying waiver of objections. The Arbitrator and the respondent denied the allegations, and the court concluded that the direction to pay Rs. 300 could not be treated as an indication of bias. - Second Ground: The Arbitrator refused to allow the appellant to examine witnesses. The court noted that the Arbitrator had provided detailed reasons for his decision, including the appellant's failure to file necessary documents and the need to complete the case within the stipulated time. The refusal to examine witnesses, while potentially an error, did not automatically indicate bias. The court emphasized that misconduct and bias are distinct concepts, and mere refusal to permit oral evidence does not prove bias. - Third Ground: The Arbitrator's statement about his prestige being involved and incurring expenses from his pocket was interpreted by the appellant as showing personal interest. The court investigated the Arbitrator's travel expenses and found that he had charged TA for only one hearing out of six and had shifted the expenses to another case. The court concluded that the Arbitrator's actions did not indicate bias or personal interest. - Fourth Ground: The appellant mentioned that the Arbitrator had been removed in another case by the High Court. The court clarified that the removal was based on consent and did not substantiate any bias in the present case. 3. Refusal to Allow Witnesses: The appellant argued that the Arbitrator's refusal to allow witnesses indicated bias. The court examined the Arbitrator's detailed order, which cited reasons such as the appellant's failure to file documents and the need to complete the case within the stipulated time. The court found no evidence of bias in the Arbitrator's decision and noted that the learned Single Judge had already allowed the appellant to examine its witnesses. 4. Arbitrator's Personal Interest in the Case: The appellant contended that the Arbitrator's statement about incurring expenses from his pocket showed personal interest. The court investigated and found that the Arbitrator had shifted the expenses for five out of six hearings to another case. The court concluded that the Arbitrator's actions did not indicate any bias or personal interest. 5. Fee Schedule and Expenses: The appellant raised a subsidiary contention about the Arbitrator's fee schedule, which was provided after the Arbitrator's appointment. The court noted that the appellant continued participating in the proceedings after receiving the fee schedule and extended the time by consent. The court found the fee proposed by the Arbitrator to be reasonable and concluded that there was no extra burden on the appellant. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to attribute bias to the Arbitrator or to revoke his authority. The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence of bias and misconduct, which was not present in this case. The Arbitrator's actions were found to be within the scope of his duties, and the appellant's objections were deemed to have been waived by their continued participation in the proceedings.
|
