2013 (3) TMI 873 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Full opportunity to represent the case.
2. Violation of mandatory procedure u/s 24 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
3. Alleged bias and prejudice by the arbitrator.

Summary:

Issue 1: Full Opportunity to Represent the Case
The petitioner argued that the arbitrator did not provide full opportunity to present his case as mandated by Section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The petitioner claimed that the arbitrator failed to consider reports from handwriting experts and did not allow the petitioner to lead additional evidence. The court noted that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities, including multiple adjournments and the chance to examine witnesses. The court found that the petitioner had, in fact, waived his right to additional evidence by failing to pursue it in a timely manner. The court concluded that the arbitrator had provided full opportunity to both parties and had acted within his discretion.

Issue 2: Violation of Mandatory Procedure u/s 24 of the Act
The petitioner contended that the arbitrator violated Section 24 by not holding oral hearings at an appropriate stage. The court observed that the arbitrator had conducted 61 sittings and had given the petitioner multiple opportunities to present his case, including oral arguments and the examination of witnesses. The court found that the petitioner had sought to delay the proceedings by making belated applications for additional evidence. The court held that the arbitrator had acted fairly and within the scope of Section 24, and there was no violation of the mandatory procedure.

Issue 3: Alleged Bias and Prejudice by the Arbitrator
The petitioner alleged that the arbitrator was biased and had a prejudiced mind against him. The court noted that the petitioner had not substantiated these allegations and had failed to file an application under Section 12 and 13 of the Act within the prescribed time. The court found that the arbitrator had shown indulgence to both parties and had granted full opportunity to present their cases. The court concluded that there was no evidence of bias or prejudice by the arbitrator, and the allegations were baseless.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the arbitration petitions, holding that the arbitrator had provided full opportunity to both parties, complied with the mandatory procedures u/s 24 of the Act, and acted without bias or prejudice. No order as to costs was made.