The court emphasized that inaction by the petitioners for four years and their request for an early decision on their application indicated acquiescence, and the allegations against the arbitrator should be decided by the arbitrator.

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

By this petition filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), the petitioners have prayed for termination of mandate of the learned sole arbitrator, the respondent no.1 herein on account of his alleged failure to act without undue delay in the arbitral proceedings commenced on 2nd July 2012 between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 6. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are having approximately 12.5% shareholdings of Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Private Limited (for short "the said company"). The petitioners are co-shareholders of the said company with the respondent nos.2 to 5. The respondent no.6 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and holds 50% shares of the said company.

3. On 22nd November 2006, an agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 6 on the terms and conditions set out in the said agreement whereby the petitioners sold and transferred 50% shareholding of the respondent no.6 to the respondent nos.2 to 5. The dispute arose between the parties with respect to the management of affairs of the said company. On 13th June 2012, the respondent nos.2 to 5 issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon them to do various acts. On 2nd July 2012, the respondent nos.2 to 5 invoked arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 22nd November 2006 and appointed the respondent no.1 as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. On 13th July 2012, the learned arbitrator accepted his appointment as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 5. Learned arbitrator accordingly vide their letter dated 13th July 2012 fixed a preliminary hearing of the arbitration on 25th July 2012. On 19th July 2012, the petitioners replied to the letter dated 13th June 2012 addressed by the respondent nos.2 to 5 and denied the allegations made therein. The petitioners called upon the respondent nos.2 to 5 to withdraw the said notice.

4. On 25th July 2012, learned arbitrator held a preliminary meeting. It is the case of the petitioners that in the said meeting before the learned arbitrator, the petitioners had expressed their unwillingness to proceed with the arbitration before the learned arbitrator and prayed that the learned arbitrator shall rescue himself from adjudication of the dispute. It is the case of the petitioners that without taking a stand on the objections raised by the petitioners, the learned arbitrator did not issue any direction in the said preliminary meeting.

5. On 27th July 2012, the respondent nos.2 to 5 filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act before the learned arbitrator inter alia praying for various interim measures against the petitioners herein. On 30th July 2012, the petitioners addressed a letter to the learned arbitrator to place on record that the petitioners had serious reservations as to the impartiality of the learned arbitrator. In the said application, the petitioners alleged that the learned arbitrator was the Advocate and Solicitors of Juhu Milliennium Club (M/s. Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Private Limited) and was an interested party in the matter. It was alleged that the learned arbitrator was also Advocate and Solicitors of the petitioners herein but since last 3 to 4 years, he was not handling the personal cases of the petitioners herein and was looking after the personal cases/matters of the respondent no.2 and had very close relations with the respondent nos.2 to 5.

6. It was alleged that there was a doubt of integrity in the matter and thus the petitioners objected for appointment and proceeding before the learned arbitrator. It is further alleged in the said application that since 2006 till the filing of the application, many changes took pla