Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: arbitrator, impartiality in Satish Chander Gupta And Sons vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 September, 2002Matching Fragments
12. Part I is further sub-divided into 10 chapters, Chapter II deals with arbitration agreement. Chapter III deals with composition of arbitral tribunal. As per Section 10 of the Act, the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number would not be an even numbers and in a situation where there is no such determination then the arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator. As per provisions of Section 11 of the Act, a person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties and the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators. In case there is an arbitration agreement and a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from the receipt of a request to do so from the other party or where the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointment, then the appointment would be made, upon request of a party by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him, Thus, after he Arbitrator/Arbitrators had been appointed in terms of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, then as per provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the aforesaid Arbitrator was required to disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. Thereafter as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, a party who felt any apprehension with regard to the impartiality of the Arbitrator or had any doubts or had any challenge to his appointment was to file an application within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal,
13. At this stage, the various provisions of the Act, relevant to the controversy involved in the present case, may be noticed as follows;
"12. Grounds for challenge. - (1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality.
(2) An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings shall, without delay, disclose to the parties in writing any circumstances referred to in Sub-section (1) unless they have already been informed of them by him.
14. Under Section 12(1) of the Act, a person when approached in connection with his possible appointment as an Arbitrator is duty bound to disclose in writing any circumstances likely to effect his independence or impartiality. Thereafter a right has been given under Section 13 of the Act to a party to challenge an Arbitrator. Such challenge has to be made by him within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or appointment of the arbitrator. Such challenge has to be made by filing a written statement of the reasons for the challenge, On receipt of the aforesaid challenge the Arbitrator has a choice to withdraw from his office or otherwise the Arbitrators/Arbitrator shall decide on the challenge. In case the challenge made by the party under Sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the Act is not successful, the Arbitral tribunal would continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. In such a situation a specific provision has been made in Sub-section 5 of Section 13 of the act that the party making the aforesaid challenge under Sub-section 2 has a right to challenge the final award given by the Arbitrator and claim the setting aside thereof on the grounds of the aforesaid initial challenge. An arbitral proceedings, having once commenced, can also be terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act when the Arbitrator, unable to perform his functions or for other reasons, fails to act without undue delay or withdraws from his office or under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, where an Arbitrator withdraws from the office for any reason or the parties agreed to terminate the agreement of arbitrator.
18. At this stage, we may also notice certain observations made by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Herika Rice Mills, Mehalkalan, District Sangrur v. State of Punjab and Ors.1, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 395 dealing with the scheme of the Act and various provisions thereof as follows:
"5. We have heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the provisions of the Act, we find no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. According to the Scheme of the Act, parties to an agreement are free to determine the number of arbitrators provided that such number is not an even number and in the absence of such determination the arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator. Sub-clause (2) of Section 11 of the Act authorises the parties to agree on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators, Sub Section (3) then provides that in the absence of any such agreement, in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the Presiding arbitrator. If the procedure of Sub-section (3) is applicable and the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator or the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within the time stipulated therein the appointment is to be made upon request of a party by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him. Once an arbitrator is appointed his appointment can be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts to his independence for impartiality or if he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties, When a person is approached in connection with his appointment as an arbitrator he is required to disclose in writing any circumstance likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. Again Section 13 provides that parties are free to agree on an procedure for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator and in the absence of any such agreement a party who intends to challenge the appointment shall within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral Tribunal, send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral Tribunal. Unless the arbitrator withdraw from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral Tribunal is to decide on the challenge and if the challenge is not successful, the arbitral Tribunal has to continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. After the award is made, a party challenging the appointment of the arbitrator can make an application for setting aside the award in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. Section 34 provides the grounds on which an award can be set aside and one of the grounds is that the composition of the arbitral Tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or was in conflict with any provision in Part I of the Act.