Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. A tender came to be floated by the respondent for grant of work of "Cess Repair by Contractor's own Earth at various Isolated Locations C/IAAP/109/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 on UP and Down Line and Associated works under jurisdiction of Divisional Engineer (South), Vadodara on Surat - Miyagam Section", with an estimated cost of Rs.2,47,77,070/-. On receiving the bids, it was found that bid offered by petitioner was lowest and petitioner was declared as L1 and as such his bid came to be accepted on 23.09.2016 and a contract came to be entered into between petitioner and respondent No.1 on 17.01.2017. On the ground of the petitioner having not fulfilled the contractual obligations, the respondent authority is said to have terminated the contract on 13.04.2018. However, petitioner has denied the cause assigned by respondents for termination of the contract was attributable to petitioner. On 14/11.09.2018 petitioner got issued a notice explaining the circumstances and sought for considering its claim for payment. On account of there being no reply, petitioner got issued a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") on 27.07.2019 as required under Clause 64 of the Agreement (General Conditions of Contract - GCC) calling upon the second respondent to appoint an Arbitrator. In response to C/IAAP/109/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 the said notice, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Works) informed the petitioner by communication dated 28.08.2019 and called upon the petitioner to submit the specified and item-wise amounts alleged to be due, resulting in petitioner issuing a notice/communication dated 02.01.2020 addressed to the second respondent whereby the details as sought for in the communication dated 28.08.2019 was furnished and the demand for referring the matter to an impartial and independent Arbitrator was sought for. As there was no reply or response from the respondents, petitioner has presented this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for appointment of sole Arbitrator.

7. Turning my attention to the facts on hand, it would clearly emerge therefrom that on receipt of notice from petitioner on 02.01.2020 by calling upon the respondent to appoint an impartial and independent Arbitrator, no steps have been taken by C/IAAP/109/2020 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2022 respondent. It is thereafter present petition has been filed on 06.11.2020. It is thereafter respondent by communication dated 18.03.2021 called upon the petitioner to waive Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has been refused by the petitioner by the communication (undated). It is in this background the respondent is contending that Clause 64(3)(b) would surface.

12. Yet another aspect which cannot go unnoticed is that hallmark of arbitration proceedings is impartiality of the Arbitrator who sits as an Arbiter to decide the dispute between the parties. In other words, the Arbitrator is required to raise above the partisan interest of parties. In Timmins vs. Gormley, reported in 2000 (1) All England Reporter 65, an application against a Judge was successful on the basis that the Judge had written four strongly worded articles which led the Court to conclude that an objective apprehension of bias may arise on the part of one of the parties. It has been held :