Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9361/2018 W.P.(C) 9372/2018 & C.M.Nos.46518/2018 (for stay by petitioner) W.P.(C) 9373/2018 & C.M.No.46523/2018 (for stay by petitioner) W.P.(C) 9417/2018

1. Present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter alia seeking appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator in accordance with Section 3G(5) and (6) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the Schedules appended thereto, more particularly, Fifth and Sixth Schedule.

2. At the outset, Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for respondent no.3/NHAI states that the present writ petitions are infructuous as the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner has been appointed as Arbitrator in accordance with Section 3G(5) of the Act on 09th October, 2018.

3. However, Mr. Saurav Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the present writ petitions are for appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act. He states that this fact had been duly noted by the learned predecessor Division Bench in its order dated 25th September, 2018 in which two judgments passed by learned Single Judges of this Court had been referred to. Since considerable reliance is placed upon the order dated 25th September, 2018 by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"9. In Dream Valley Farms Private Limited vs. Religare Finvest Limited & Ors. ARB. 635/2016 decided on 19.10.2016 which runs as under:

20. While in the normal course, that would be one option, in the present case not only are Clauses 22 and 24 of the Fifth Schedule attracted giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator, but the conduct of the Arbitrator in seeking to mislead the Petitioner and suppress in the first instance the fact of his being a presiding Arbitrator in 27 arbitration matters relating to the Respondent smacks of dishonesty that is unbecoming of an Arbitrator.

21. The Court is satisfied that for the purposes of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act the Arbitrator becomes de jure disqualified from continuing as an arbitrator. His mandate is accordingly terminated.

10. ASSIGNIA-VIL JV vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited ARB.P. 677/2015 decided on 29.04.2016 by the Court as under:

"43. The Fifth Schedule i.e. supplementary provision read with Section 12 (l)(b) mandates that the appointment made by any party which would give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of arbitrator if he has relationship with the parties or counsel or the arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party, the same would give rise to justifiable doubts. Similarly the Seventh Schedule read with Section 12 (5) mandates that there shall not be any arbitrator's relationship with the parties or counsel who should also not be an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party. If the answer is yes, the person should not be appointed as arbitrator in the said matter. In the present case, the suggestion of the respondent to appoint its own employee who is either present employee or retired employee, the request cannot be accepted as the arbitration is invoked after amended Act has come into operation. In case the said request is allowed, the very purpose of amending the Act would be defeated. 44. I am clear in my mind that under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, if any such case is covered as referred above in earlier para which cover the supplementary provision of schedule Fifth and Seventh, under those circumstances, the Court is duty bound to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator as per Section 12 of the Act (as amended in 2015). As the arbitration is being an employee of one of the parties would definitely give rise to justifiable doubt as to his independence and impartiality."