Mecengineers, Engineers & ... vs Hotel Imperial And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1172 Del

ORDER

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a petition filed by M/s Mecengineers, Engineers and Contractors, hereinafter described as the petitioner, seeking revocation of the authority of respondent no.2 as arbitrator and to refer the disputes set out in paragraph 15 to an arbitrator appointed by this court. The facts alleged are that the petitioner is a partnership firm. It had submitted tenders for electrical installations in the new block in Hotel Imperial on 11.10.1988. The tender was accepted by respondent no.1. The agreement provided that in case of disputes it shall be settled by arbitration. The application was not given the approved construction drawings for main electrical single line diagram for more than a year.

2. Respondent no.2 had directed the petitioner/applicant to use MS Electrical conduits instead of PVC conduits. The petitioner was also directed to install additional items in the guest rooms. Revised single line diagram necessitated installation of substituted panels. Differences arose between the parties as to the rates to which the applicant was entitled. The bill submitted by the petitioner were treated in a whimsical manner and arbitrary deductions were made which have been mentioned as :

Revised Rate Rates(Rs.) Allowed (Rs)

1. Point wiring of one light point controlled by 5 amp. swutcg 271 224,199,105, 158,187 & 187.40

2. Wiring of one light point controlled by 2 nos. two-way 5 amp. switch 359 312,278,200, 295 & 260.67

3. 5 amp. switch scokets (light plug) 314 274,243,253 & 283

4. Telephone outlet point 472 425,378,450

5. shaver socket 30 24 & 37.50

6. 15"4"2 console box 133 105 & 100

7. 5 light controlled by 20 MCB 718 419 & 500

8. Energy saving device 5500 2000 & 5000B

3. The grievance of the petitioner/applicant is that the authority of respondent no.2 should be revoked because he will not be an impartial arbitrator. He willfully refused to decide the rates for additional and substituted items. The disputes have also arisen due to whimsical manner in which the architect had dealt with the matter. Hence the present petition.

4. Notice of the petitioner had been issued and record of 24th July, 1996 indicates that respondent no.1 had told the Joint Registrar (O) that the reply/written statement has been filed. The report of the registry indicates that the same had been returned. Thereafter no reply or the written statement had been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant only raised one pertinent argument that as already reproduced above, the architect according to him, had been dealing arbitrarily with respect to the rates pertaining to the bills and therefore his authority as such should be revoked.

6. Indeed Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the court can remove an arbitrator if it had failed to use all reasonable dispatch in entering and proceeding with the reference and making the award or has misconducted himself.

7. At this stage the court is not expressing any opinion but suffice to say that admittedly there is an arbitration agreement with respondent no.2 as the arbitrator. There is nothing on the record that after the respondent no.2 was appointed as the arbitrator he misconducted himself or conducted the proceedings in a manner to prompt this court to remove his as such. In that view of the matter without probing further and expressing any opinion it is patent that the arbitrator should not be removed. If there is any legal ground that applicant may at the stage move the court afresh but as the present the suit must fail and is dismissed.