Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

b. That an Arbitral award can be challenged under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration Act only if such a challenge had first been made before the Arbitral Tribunal. He submits that thus the petitioner became aware of the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal on 6th May, 1998. The petitioner had 15 days, in terms of Section 13(2) of the Arbitration Act to challenge the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal but the petitioner filed the application under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act only on 10th june, 1998 i.e. after 35 days. He submits that there was a waiver by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Arbitration Act, of its right to raise a challenge under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act and further, in view of Section 13 (2) of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner could not have challenged the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal after the expiry of 15 days after becoming aware of its constitution. The Arbitral Award, according to him, cannot therefore be challenged under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act.
c. That besides making allegations the petitioner has not set out any circumstances by which it can be shown that the Arbitral tribunal acted in a biased manner. He submits that not all claims of the respondent were allowed and not all claims of the petitioner were rejected, and merely because the claims of the respondent were allowed and those of the petitioner rejected does not by itself constitute bias or is indicative thereof. He further submits that the submission of the petitioner that the arbitrators when they were approached, were required to disclose in writing that there are no circumstances which are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence is contrary to the plain language of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act. According to him, a disclosure is required to be made or given by the Arbitral Tribunal only when there exist grounds, which can give rise to justifiable doubts about the independence or impartiality of the arbitrators. In other words, if no such grounds exist no disclosure is required. d. That a challenge under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act can be made only on the grounds mentioned in the said section and on no other grounds. This is clear from the language of Section 12(3) of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner, according to him, in its belated and time barred application under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, raised the following grounds: -
a. The manner that the Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted gives rise to justifiable doubts about its impartiality;
b. None of the arbitrators had disclosed in writing the requisite circumstances as to their independence and impartiality.
c. The composition of the Arbitral Tribunal and the procedure followed in its composition is not in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties.
That these are not grounds on which the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal can be questioned under Section 12(3) of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, he submits that the application made by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, was rightly rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, by its order dated 18th August, 1998. He further submits, that the petitioner before this Court cannot urge the grounds which had not been first raised before the Arbitral Tribunal.

41. Section 12(3) of the Arbitration Act sets out the grounds on which a challenge can be made to the arbitrator or the Arbitral Tribunal. Under Section 12(3) of the Arbitration Act, a challenge can be made only if one or both of the two grounds set out in the said section has been fulfilled. In the application filed by the petitioner, before the Arbitral Tribunal, under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration Act, the grounds raised by the petitioner were that it had justifiable doubts about the independence of the Arbitral Tribunal in view of the manner in which it was constituted. The words "justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality" in themselves do not confer any right. A mere reproduction of the said words does not give rise to any justifiable doubts about the independence or impartiality of the Arbitral Tribunal, but such bias or partiality has to be shown from the records with reference to specific instances. This Court is unable to comprehend as to how can the manner, in which the arbitral tribunal had been constituted, in itself gave rise to any justifiable doubts about the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner in its application under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration Act, were permissible in view of the phraseology of Section 12 (3) of the Arbitration Act and the said application was therefore, rightly rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.