Calcutta High Court
Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Keshab Rai on 9 December, 2015
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD 62
AP 818 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
VERSUS
KESHAB RAI
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 2nd December, 2015.
Mr. Satarup Banerjee,Advocate appears.
The Court : - The petitioner says that notwithstanding the order of December 2, 2015, it may not be impartial to discuss the antiques of Pulin Bihari Das since such person is not being nominated as Arbitrator by this finance company after the recent amendment of October 23, 2015 to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The substance of the amending Ordinance did not alter the fundamental position in the Statute as to the impartiality of Arbitrator. A schedule has been appended to the original Act merely to indicate what circumstances would lead to an inference of a nexus between the Arbitrator and the party appointing the Arbitrator.
Pursuant to directions issued in other matters pertaining to this finance company, the same Arbitrator, Pulin Bihari Das, has furnished information to this Court in writing to the effect that he has been engaged only by this finance 2 company to conduct about 2900 arbitral references since the year 2010. The Arbitrator already indicated that he had taken up references on behalf of another sister concern on behalf of a sister concern for the finance company involved herein.
It is also recorded in an order passed earlier today that the order has indicated that in the financial year 2014-15 the Arbitrator has been paid in excess of Rs. 66 lakh by this finance company by way of fees and remuneration, including on account of stenographer and postal charges and the like.
It is unacceptable that an Arbitrator accustomed to being paid by a particular party would uphold the virtues of impartiality. At any rate, given the facts as disclosed by the Arbitrator in course of other proceedings in this Court as referred to above, it was incumbent on the Arbitrator, under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to disclose his nexus with this finance company.
The question posed in the year dated December 2, 2015 remains unanswered and an executive director of the finance company should furnish the explanation as sought by the previous order by the time. The matter appears next a fortnight hence.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) S.Chandra 3