Allahabad High Court
Trading Engineers (International) ... vs U.P. Power Transmission Corp. Ltd. Thru ... on 22 October, 2020
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 5 of 2020 Applicant :- Trading Engineers (International) Ltd. Rep. By Mahipal Singh Opposite Party :- U.P. Power Transmission Corp. Ltd. Thru Chairman Counsel for Applicant :- Gantavya,Gauri Chaturvedi,Kumar Abhishek,Mayur Narang,Meha Rashmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Puneet Chandra Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard Sri Gantavya Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party.
Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has submitted that he does not wish to file any response as he has been instructed by his clients to say that they will have no objection if this Court appoints an Arbitrator. He has also submitted that he himself has talked to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar (Retd.), who has orally not objected to being appointed as an Arbitrator.
Sri Gantavya Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that in earlier arbitration application between the same parties which was disposed of by this Court in February, 2020, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anurag Kumar (Retd.) was appointed as an Arbitrator and he is currently seized of a similar dispute and having considerably advanced in his arbitral efforts, he is in know of all the facts and it would be easier for the applicant to get heard before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anurag Kumar (Retd.), which will result in expeditious disposal of the case.
Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has referred to Schedule-V Rule 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. It has been submitted that if the Arbitrator is currently serving or has served within the past three years as an Arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving between the parties or a dispute between the parties, then it might raise justified doubts as to his independence and impartiality. He has also referred to Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, 1996.
Sri Gantavya Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand has referred to the Explanation 1 of Section 12(1)(a)(b), which says that the grounds stated in 5th Schedule shall only serve as a guide in determining whether the circumstances exist which can give rise to a justified doubt as to the independence or impartiality of an Arbitrator. He has submitted that Schedule-V does not talk of grounds of ineligibility of the Arbitrator but talks of ground which might raise justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality. He has further submitted that in all cases, Rule 24 would not be an complete bar. He has referred to a judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.R.D. Corporation Vs. G.A.I.L., (2018) 12 SCC 471. He has read out paragraph-24 of the said judgment wherein the Supreme Court has said that Rule 24 does not create any absolute bar and has to be read harmoniously with Rule 16 of Schedule-V. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been framed with the avowed object of expeditious disposal of the disputes arising out between the parties under an agreement which has an arbitration clause in it and in case, the opposite party herein wish to challenge any finding of the proposed Arbitrator of the applicant, namely, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anurag Kumar (Retd.), they may raise valid ground of Rule 24 of the Schedule-V even on the termination of the Arbitration and the passing of the Arbitral Award. This may not lead to any saving of time nor expeditious disposal of the dispute between the parties.
Therefore, this Court appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar (Retd.) as an Arbitrator in the case as he has already given his oral consent.
The arbitration application is disposed of.
Let all papers be placed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar (Retd.).
Order Date :- 22.10.2020 Rahul