Delhi High Court
V.K. Jain vs Jay Engg. Works Ltd. on 13 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) ARBLR 525 Delhi, 100 (2002) DLT 592, 2003 42 SCL 135 Delhi
Author: S Mukerjee
Bench: S Mukerjee
JUDGMENT
S. Mukerjee, J.
1. The short point which arises for consideration in this case is whether the respondent could unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator after a delay of about one year beyond the date of petitioner suggesting the name of an arbitrator who was a retired judge of this Court.
2. In this case, FICCI had called upon the petitioner to forward the name of a sole arbitrator, and the petitioner in response thereto, on 21.6.2001, had named Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla (Retd. Judge) from amongst the name sin FICCI's approved panel of arbitrators.
3. As such on the expiry of 30 days from 21.6.2001, Shri Justice M.K. Chawla (Retd.) became the agreed name. Alternatively, and in any case, thereafter it was only the Court which could appoint an arbitrator and not FICCI.
4. The consent of the petitioner was also not obtained in relation to the other persons (Shri J.P. Gupta), who was instead appointed as a sole arbitrator.
5. Reliance was initially placed by the Ld Counsel for the respondents upon Rule 17 as set out at page 3 of the rely. But the said Rule stipulates for the Registrar of FICCI to appoint an Arbitrator, only where there is disagreement between the parties regarding who should be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. In this case the petitioner, vide letter dated 21.6.2001, proposed the name of Justice M.K. Chawla, retired Judge of this Court and the letter of disagreement dated 24.11.2001, was far beyond the period of 30 days provided for the said purpose in Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. After some argument, Ld. Counsel for the respondent very fairly submitted that she will make available a list of arbitrators of the FICCI, and in view of the fact that Justice M.K. Chawla is no more, the Court may appoint an arbitrator under the powers of the Court. She further submitted that now even though the period of 30 days got over long back, yet since there are a number of the retired judges in the said list, any one from amongst them, may be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner upon hearing the very fair stand of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent to the effect that any other retired Judge be appointed from the panel of FICCI, also left it to this Court to appoint anyone from amongst the retired judges who are the panel of FICCI. The appointment of Shri J.P. Gupta is cancelled/revoked.
8. In this view of the matter, no other orders are required in the present case, except to direct that Justice S.B. Wad, Retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court, and who is also one of the empanelled former Judges with the FICCI, shall be the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes as contained in the statement of claim of the respondent dated 26.5.91. The fee of the arbitrator shall be as per the schedule of the fees of FICCI, and will be borne by the parties as per the applicable rules of FICCI.
9. The Ld. arbitrator will make and publish the award as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of entering upon the reference.
10. AA 127/2000 stands disposed of.
