Mukesh Aggarwal vs Atul Gupta & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 859 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2015

+       FAO(OS) 43/2015

MUKESH AGGARWAL                                                ... Appellant

                                         versus

ATUL GUPTA & ANR                                               ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant            : Mr P. R. Agarwal with Mr Y. R. Sharma and
                               Mrs Anju Bhushan
For the Respondent           : None

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 1585/2015 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

FAO(OS) 43/2015 & CM 1584/2015

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP 984/2014 which had been filed by the

appellant.

2. The said OMP 984/2014 was filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), requesting

the Court to decide on the issue of termination of mandate of the arbitrator. The

learned Single Judge rejected the said application on the ground that Section 14 is

not applicable as none of the conditions prescribed in Section 14(1)(a) read with

Section 14(2) have been satisfied. The learned Single Judge came to the

conclusion that the appellant was unable to show that the arbitrator had become

de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or had failed to act without

undue delay. As a consequence, the said application was rejected.

3. It is also relevant to note that the charge of the appellant against the

arbitrator is of justifiable doubts as to his independence and/ or impartiality.

Based on this, the appellant had moved an application following the procedure of

challenge prescribed under Section 13 of the said Act. Section 12(3) stipulates

that an arbitrator may be challenged only if, (a) circumstances exist that give rise

to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, or (b) he does not

possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties. It is the case of the appellant

that circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the

independence/ impartiality of the arbitrator. It is for this reason that challenge

was raised by the appellant, following the procedure prescribed under Section 13

and in particular, sub-section (2) thereof. The said challenge, which was in the

form of an application, was disposed of by the arbitrator by rejecting the same by

an order dated 30.07.2014.

4. Once this happens, the next step is stipulated in Section 13(4), which

provides that if a challenge is not successful, the Arbitral Tribunal shall continue

the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award. However, to safeguard the

interest of the party challenging the arbitrator unsuccessfully, provision has been

made in sub-section (5) of Section 13 to enable such party to challenge the award

by making an application for setting aside the same in accordance with Section

34 of the said Act. That is the course of action which the appellant has to follow.

Section 14 is clearly inapplicable. It does not deal with the situation of a party

having justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator.

The latter aspect is completely covered by Section 12 and 13 of the said Act.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the application of the

appellant under Section 14 of the said Act particularly when the appellant had

taken the route of Section 13.

5. As a result, the appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed. But, there

shall be no order as to costs.

                                                 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




JANUARY 30, 2015                                   SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR