9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uie 'I' to the affidavit accompanying the stay application made by the appellant). Referring to the arbitration clause Sri V.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the parties agreed that the Vice Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) will be the sole arbitrator and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction under Section 20(4) of the Act to appoint any other arbitrator. His submission is that so long as the parlies have agreed about an individual for being appointed as an arbitrator and if the arbitrator is named in the arbitration agreement, then the court has no power to appoint any other arbitrator and that the Court may assume jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator different from the one who is named ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be single arbitrator and that would be the Vice Chairman of the GDA and none else. He submits that under the arbitration clause only the Vice Chairman of the GDA could be appointed as the arbitrator and the Court has no power under Section 20(4) of the Aet to appoint any other arbitrator, Shri Khare urges that if the contention of the appellant is accepted, then the words "parties can agree" occurring in the arbitration clause will be rendered otiose, nugatory and surplusage and that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted in a fashion as to render any word used in it, useless. His argument is that the words "parlies can agree" clearly denote the scope of the agreement of the parties on the appointment of an arbitrator and the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es can agree" occurring in the arbitration clause is a matter of guess, conjecture and surmises and. no edifice of agreement-however condueive to the justice and laudable--can be built upon that. The golden principle is that ambiguous words are to be left out and ignored while interpreting a given agreement clause. Keeping in view this principle of arbitral agreement--interpretation we are of the considered view that the parties to the agreement had agreed only to the appointment of the Vice Chairman of the GDA as arbitrator and no significance can be attached to the disjointed words "parties can agree" having no nexus to rest of the arbitration clause. 6. S. Raja'n v. State of Kerala, (1992) 3 SCC 608 : (AIR 1992 SC 1918), the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be rejected. It is not the failure of the GDA, but the failure of the arbitrator which is material. The Vice Chairman may be Chief Executive Officer of the GDA; but the question is whether the Vice Chairman failed to act as the arbitrator. If the GDA failed to make reference to the Vice Chairman, it cannot be said that the Vice Chairman as the arbitrator failed to act and, therefore, even on the submission of Sri Khare, no jurisdiction can be said to have been vested in the Court to appoint any other person as the arbitrator. 8. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal, (1979) 3 SCC 631 : (AIR 1979 SC 1457), the Court while construing Seclion 20(4) held in paragraph 3 thus: "....-............. If no such arbitralor had been appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
