M/S. Attar Singh And Brothers vs Delhi Development Authority
1996 Latest Caselaw 158 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that this court be pleased to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes or direct defendant No. 2 i.e., appointing authority to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate in terms of the arbitration agreement.

2. The facts giving rise of the present petition are somewhat peculiar. Mr. S. C. Kaushal, Superintending Engineer Arbitration had been appointed the arbitrator vide communication bearing No. EN 12(18)/92/Arbn/9136-40 dated 25-6-1992. The arbitrator entered upon reference and commenced the proceedings.

3. It appears that bearing 11-5-1993, petitioner claimant expressed his unwillingness to proceed with the matter before the arbitrator. The arbitration thereupon closed the case and sent the case file No. ARB/SCK 1 to the Engineer Member vide his communication bearing No. F. (Retd)/SE Abn. II/DDA/185 dated 20th May, 1993. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have filed The present petition under Section 20 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator stating that the arbitrator being unable to act the respondent should appoint another arbitrator.

4. The Respondent DDA has filed a replay to the petition stating that based on the claimant submission that he would not like to proceed any further in the matter the arbitrator was fully justified in closing the case of the petitioner. It is contended that this is not a case where the arbitrator was "unable to proceed".

5. The petitioners' grievance appears to be that the arbitrator failed to give directions to the respondent to produce relevant diary, registers and was acting in a biased manner.

6. This is not a case which falls within the ambit of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Reference may be usefully made to Mangal Prasad v. Lachman Prasad , G. D. Arora v. Shri Inderjit Arora (1996 (1) AD Delhi 465).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some arguments accepts the position that this would not be a case of the arbitrator being unable to act and wishes to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a petition seeking removal of the arbitrator and/or revocation of the authority of the arbitrator. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to this.

8. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.