Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The plaintiff being the Ex-Servicemen got the dealership under defence quota and he never committed any irregularities in dealing with the products of the defendant No.1, nor violated the terms of the dealership agreement. In spite of the same, the defendant No.2 being the sole arbitrator has not taken into consideration about the materials which placed on record, nor taken into consideration about the illegal termination of the dealership agreement which taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 because of termination of the dealership agreement the plaintiff has sustained huge loss, thereby the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the award which passed by sole arbitrator has filed the instant suit and the sole arbitrator has not passed the award within the limitation as prescribed in the dealership agreement which taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in view of Sec.29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the defendant No.2 being the employee of the defendant No.1, having the bias in the subject matter of the dispute which taken place in between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 nor complied in view of Sec.12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since the sole arbitrator has not disclosed in writing any circumstances which appeared in Sec.12(1)(a)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the sole arbitrator being the employee of the defendant No.1 cannot be appointed as sole arbitrator, in view of 7th schedule the sole arbitrator was ineligible to be appointed as sole arbitrator and the sole arbitrator has not followed the procedure which laid down in the Act and the sole arbitrator has not assigned any reasons for his conclusion to pass the award in view of Sec.31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the plaintiff has filed the instant suit within the limitation and the sole arbitrator has not taken into consideration about the dealership agreement clause 66 and if the appointment of sole arbitrator and appearance of parties are taken into consideration that the award which passed by the sole arbitrator is void in view of Sec.29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since the award was not passed within the limitation and the sole arbitrator has not taken into consideration about the MDG guidelines. Therefore, it is just and necessary to set aside the award which passed by the sole arbitrator, otherwise the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injustice and allow the suit.

17. So keeping the provisions which referred above and the claim of the plaintiff in mind, now let me know the arguments which advanced by both the counsels as well as the materials on record, as the learned counsel for the plaintiff while canvassing his arguments has much argued that the appointment of the sole arbitrator being the employee of the defendant No.1 was ineligible. Thus this court drawn its attention on Sec.12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which reads like this;

18. So, one thing is clear that the sole arbitrator who appointed was not complied under Sec.12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The provision which referred above i.e. Sec.12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is very much clear any person whose relationship with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute falls under any of the categories specified in the 7th schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. It is an admitted fact Sec.12(5) was came to be inserted by virtue of the Arbitration and Conciliation Amended Act 2015 which effects from 23.10.2015. The award which placed on record reflects that as per letter CMD/100 dated 15.02.2017 Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., was appointed the sole arbitrator. So if the date of appointment has been taken into consideration, Sec.12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is applicable to the case on hand. Thus, as per 7th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is very much clear where the arbitrator has been appointed who is an employee, consultant, advisor any past or present business relationship with the party who is ineligible to be appoint as arbitrator.

19. In the instant case, the cause title of the plaint clearly reflects the defendant No.2 has been appointed as sole arbitrator is none other than the employee of the defendant No.1. Therefore after the amendment from 23.10.2015 the appointment of the arbitrator falls under 7th schedule is ineligible. Thus this court drawn its attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which reported in 2019(5) SCC 755 in between Bharath Broadband Network Ltd., Vs United Telecom Ltd. In the said judgment their lordship held that in the present appeals, araise an interesting question as to the interpretation of Sec.12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as Sec.12(5) is a new provision which relates to the de-jure inability of an arbitrator to act as such under the provision any prior agreement to the contrary is wiped out by the non abstant clause in Sec.12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the movement any person whose relationship with the parties or the counsel or the subject matter of the dispute falls under 7 th schedule declares that such person shall be ineligible to appoint as arbitrator. In the said judgment, the Managing Director of the respondent has been nominated as sole arbitrator who is the employee of the respondent, thereby the appeal was came to be allowed and set aside the impugned judgment. In the instant case also, though the claimant has not been raised in the arbitral proceedings regarding the ineligibility for appointment of sole arbitrator, it does not mean that the claimant has waived his right in view of the judgment which referred above, as the Learned counsel for the defendant while canvassing his arguments has much argued that the plaintiff has not raised any objection regarding appointment of the sole arbitrator, but in the judgment which referred above their lordship held that it is also clear that if any element of public interest is involved and waiver take place by one of the parties to an agreement, such waiver will not be given effect, if it is contrary to such public interest. This is clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in 2014(5) SCC 660 in between Vasu P. Shetty Vs Hotel Vandana Palace. Therefore, the arguments which advanced by the Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 on this aspect holds no water and the judgment which referred above is directly applicable to the case on hand. Thus the sole arbitrator who was appointment for adjudication of the dispute falls under 7th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and who is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.