(August 14, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125652

2001-AD (Del)-7-302 :: 2001-ILRDLH-7-36

B. M. LABRU Vs. Vibhoo Kumar

V. S. AGGARWAL

( 1 ) SHRI P. K. Jain had been appointed as the sole arbitrator. In pursuance of the said appointment the arbitrator had submitted the award dated 25/5/1982.

( 2 ) OBJECTIONS have been filed by Shri Vibhoo Kumar (for short respondent no. 1.) under Section 17, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. It has been asserted that respondent no. 1 had filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 45,750. 00 against M/s Maltex Agents and Distributors. Therein an application had been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the suit as such was stayed. The arbitrator was appointed after a period of four months from 1 7/09/1980. An application was filed on 29/01/1981 for seeking extension of time to make and publish the award. The time is stated to have been extended. The arbitrator thereafter only issued one notice which was received on 26/5/1981. The arbitrator was informed that respondent no. 1 is out of station. Respondent no. 1 again informed the arbitrator that on 15/5/1981 he would be out of India. On 2/7/1981 second application was filed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time to make and publish the award. It was again allowed without any notice to respondent no. 1. The arbitrator is alleged to have issued notice and fixed 19/8/1981 as the date of the hearing. On 19/8/1981 respondent no. 1 appeared before the arbitrator. An application was further filed for extension of time on 7/11/1981. The application was opposed. On 27/1/1982 Shri 6 B. Gupta, Additional. District Judge after perusing the objections held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim because it was beyond Rs. 5,00,000. 00 lakhs. But on 27/1/1982, the learned Additional. District Judge is alleged to have granted the extension of time.

( 3 ) THE complaint of the respondent 1 further is that on 17/2/1982 respondent no. 1 had filed a revision petition for quashing the order on 27/1/1982. It was admitted for regular hearing. Certain notices alleged to have been issued by the arbitrator but no specific direction us stated to have been given. On 20/4/1982 the arbitrator sent a notice fixing the next date as 7/5/1982 and it is the claim made that the arbitrator dishonestly alleged that respondent no. 1 was not cooperating in the arbitration proceedings. On 7/5/1982 respondent no. 1 had filed his written statement. Matter was adjourned to 18/5/1982 for filing the replication. On 18/5/1981 respondent no. 1 filed an application for production of documents in power and possession of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner, asserts that he has no objection in this regard. The arbitrator, in order to help the petitioner did not record this fact. On 27/5/1982 it is asserted that affidavits or respondent no. 1 were incomplete and even filed an application seeking permission to cross-examine some of the deponents and even requested the arbitrator to supply copies of the proceedings. On 24/5/1982 parties filed their affidavits along with the documents. The petitioner even filed a civil miscellaneous petition in this court and on 26/5/1982 this court had restrained the arbitrator from delivering the award. This fact was informed to the arbitrator on telephone but the arbitrator pronounced the award a day earlier. According to respondent no. 1 he ante dated the same.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT no. 1, therefore, seeks setting aside of the award primarily on the ground that the arbitrator is a close friend of B. M. Labroo. He has falsely been recording that respondent no. 1 had absented from the proceedings. On occasions no notice was issued but the arbitator recorded otherwise. It has further been asserted that no opportunity was given to cross-examine the witnesses who had filed the affidavits. On 24/5/1982 the arbitrator had observed that the other side had no objection if the respondent no. 1 is allowed to inspect the record bu