Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"2. Whereas the undersigned having accepted to act as Sole Arbitrator, makes the following declaration regarding impartiality and independence in terms of Schedule V, VI and VII of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( as amended in 2015):

"I, Justice M.L. Mehta (Retd.) Former Judge of Delhi High Court do hereby disclose and declare that 1 have never been associated (past or present) in any capacity, personally or otherwise with either of the parties and no circumstances exit under schedule V, VI & VII which may give rise to any justifiable doubt my independence or impartiality. I also declare that I do not have any financial, personal or any other· kind of interest, direct or indirect, in the Arbitration proceedings or the outcome of the Award.

15. I also find merit in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner(s) are guilty of suppression of facts and the present petitions are accordingly liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.

The petitioner(s) have intentionally concealed from this Court the notice invoking the arbitration clause which clearly recorded as under:

"5. Kindly note that in order to save time and costs, we are nominating Hon'ble Justice Mr.M.L.Mehta in all the arbitrations involving the issue of outstanding VAT payments under the DVAT Act 2004 connected to the Commonwealth Games Village Apartments, Delhi. In this regard, we seek to emphasize that there is no legal bar in respect of such appointment under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Arbitration & Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015. A perusal of Section 12(i), more specifically Explanation 1thereof, shows that the grounds stated in the Fifth Schedule of the Act are indicative of the factors to facilitate the determine of whether circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an Arbitrator. Therefore, the Fifth Schedule contains only guidelines. The Fifth Schedule, we positively state that neither Sl. No.22 or Sl. No.24 thereof would be relevant to this case as they do not deal with the simultaneous and concurrent appointment of a single Arbitrator in multiple disputes involving the identical question, i.e. outstanding liability quo VAT due from the Buyers Agreement and the Conveyance Deed (which are identical in the case of all customers). Clauses 22 and 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 are reproduced hereunder: