Vikesh Chugh vs B.L.B.Ltd. & Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1725 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           FAO No. 131 of 2007


                                          Date of Decision : 24-09-2008


        VIKESH CHUGH                     ..... Appellant
                           Through: Mr. Dinesh Sabharwal, Advocate

                      versus


        B.L.B.LTD. & ANR.            ..... Respondent
                         Through : Navin Bhardwaj, Advocate


CORAM:
    HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.      Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
        judgment? Yes
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? Yes


REKHA SHARMA, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment of Additional

District Judge Shri K.S.Mohi dated February 3, 2007 dismissing the

objections filed by the appellant against the Award dated April 17,2006

passed by the Arbitrator Shri Anil K.Chauhan. The facts relevant to the

disposal of the appeal are as under : -

The appellant was selected as Junior Executive (Dealing

Room) in the respondent company and upon his selection he executed

an 'employment agreement' dated December 24,2002 containing

conditions of his employment. In terms of the conditions as contained

in the agreement he executed a bond and an undertaking to serve the

respondent for a period of at least 5-1/2 years including the period of

probation. The terms of his employment also contained an arbitration

clause which provided that in case of disputes and differences between

him and the company during the course of employment or thereafter in

relation to respective rights and liabilities including the effect and

interpretation of terms and conditions of the letter of appointment,

service bond or any other document, the same shall be referred to the

sole Arbitrator appointed by the Chairman of the company not below

the status of Executive Director/ Working Director/ Vice President of

the Company or any practicing Advocate of the Delhi High Court.

It so happened that in June 2005 the appellant left the

employment of the respondent. According to the appellant he was

forced to resign, while as per the respondent he acted in breach of the

terms of his employment. In view of the dispute having arisen

between the parties, arbitration clause was invoked and

Shri Anil K. Chauhan, Advocate, was appointed as the Arbitrator. The

respondent filed its Statement of Claim before the Arbitrator and

claimed a sum of Rs. 7,41,300/- along with interest @ 24%. The

appellant filed written statement and thereby not only refuted the

claim of the respondent but also filed counter-claim demanding a sum

of Rs. 9,61,400/- from the respondent. The learned Arbitrator vide his

award dated April 17,2006 awarded a sum of Rs.3,04,092/- to the

respondent and a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant. Resultantly, the

appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,01,092/- to the respondent

along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the

statement of claim till realization.

As noticed above the appellant assailed the award before

the Additional District Judge who found no merit in the objections and

dismissed the same. Hence, the present appeal.

A perusal of the impugned award shows that the appellant

broadly challenged the award on three grounds. Firstly, it was argued

that the learned Arbitrator was lacking in jurisdiction to deal with the

matter as he was not appointed in terms of the arbitration clause. The

clause in question as noticed above authorized the Chairman of the

respondent company to appoint an Arbitrator who shall not be below

the status of Executive Director/ Working Director/ Vice President of

the company or any practicing Advocate of Delhi High Court. It was

contended before the learned Additional District Judge that Shri Anil K

Chauhan Advocate was not a practicing Advocate of the Delhi High

Court as he maintained his office in Chamber No.K-130-A, at Tis Hazari

Courts, Delhi. Although, nothing to this effect was explicitly stated in

the written statement filed before the Arbitrator and all that was stated

therein was that the Arbitration Tribunal had no jurisdiction to

adjudicate the claim yet the Additional District Judge considered the

objection but found no merit in the same. It has been held by the

learned Additional District Judge that as per Section 13(2) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the objection as to the

jurisdiction of an Arbitrator has to be filed within 15 days after the

party raising objection to the jurisdiction becomes aware of the

constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Any objection raised after the

expiry of 15 days has been held to be of no consequence. In any case,

the learned Additional District Judge has also held that the mere fact

that the Arbitrator was having his chamber at Tis Hazari Courts was no

ground to hold against him that he was not a practicing Advocate of

Delhi High Court. I find no error or infirmity in the said finding of the

learned Additional District Judge. Hence, I too hold that the Arbitrator

was fully competent to deal with the disputes raised.

Secondly, the appellant challenged the 'employment

agreement' containing the terms and conditions and also the

'arbitration clause' on the ground that it was hit by Section

10,13,14,15, 27& 28 of the Indian Contract Act. This objection did not

find favour with the learned Additional District Judge on the ground

that while on the one hand the appellant questioned the terms and

conditions of the agreement, on the other he raised counter claim

basing himself on the same agreement. I fully endorse the view of the

Additional District Judge. The appellant was blowing hot and cold at the

same time. He could not claim benefit on the basis of terms and

conditions of the 'employment agreement' and yet ridicule the

agreement.

Lastly, it was contended that the arbitration award was in

conflict with public policy. The learned Additional District Judge has

observed that the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out

that the award passed against him was opposed to or was in conflict

with the fundamental policy of Indian Law. It has been further observed

that the appellant with all his wisdom entered into a contract of service

with the respondent on the condition that he would not work with any

competitor of the respondent company during that period. Such a

service agreement is not and cannot be said to be opposed to public

policy or hit by any of the provisions of Indian Contract Act. Here, again

I am in agreement with the finding of the Additional District Judge.

It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the reviewing court

under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not appellate in

nature and the award given by the arbitrator cannot be scrutinized by

the court in a manner as it does in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction. The Court will not interfere with the award merely because

it is found that the view taken by the arbitrator does not agree with the

view of the court in the facts or on law.

For the foregoing reasons the appeal against the impugned

judgment is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 g