( 1 ) THIS Petition, Filed by the petitioner under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. , 1996 seeks to set aside the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator and further seeks the appointment of a new and independent arbitrator to adjudicate the claims.

( 2 ) THE main plea of the petitioner is based upon that clause 19 of the contract between the parties the relevant portion of which reads as foflows:

"all disputes and difference arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever (Except the matter REFERRED TO to in Sub- Clause 30 of Clause XXI and as to any mailer the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be REFERRED TO to the sofe arbitration of any person appointment by the Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi, It will he no objection to any such appointment that the person appointed is an employee of the Corporation that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that, in the course of his duties as such employee of the Corporation, he has expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. "

( 3 ) IT is the submission of the petitioner that the above quofed arbitration clause is. unreasonable and one-sided and provides for appoinlmeni from a panel of arbitrators of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the arbitrator in question in the present case Shri R. K, Goel has been appointed as an arbitrator in number of disputes concerning respondent No. 1. and therefore serious miscarriage of justice is apprehended. It is inter-alia suhmitted that the Clause providing for appointment of arbitrator suffers frorn lack ol consensus-ad-idem. In support of its plea, the learned counsel lor the petitioner has relied on the following observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Nandyal Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. v. K. V. Mohan Rao (1993) 2. SCC 654:- "the decision relied on hy the High Court in V. Raghunadha Rao v. State of A. P. (1988) I ALT 461 was in relation to the appoiniment of an Engineer of the Department, the party to the contract. In, the doited lines contract it was held that the consensus-ad-idem was absent and the element of bias would be inherent from the fact situation. It beare no relevance to the facts of the case. In Judicial Review of Administrative Action by S. A. de Smith (3rd Edn.) at P. 223 it is slated that " In a private law an independent commercial arhilralor must observe striclly judicial standards". At P. 229 he further staled that "it is open to a parly to lead evidence it prove that an independent arbitrator has shown altered bias in favour ol the other parly has prejudged the issue". Admittedly Yethiraj acted on earlier occasions as appellant s arbitrator. Justice must not only he done hut seemingly appear to have been done. The arbitrator must not only he impartial also he objeclive. circumspect and honest in rendering his decision. Many a time the award is not a speaking a ward which would inspire confidence for acceptance only when the above perspectives are present. Its invalidity would be tested on grounds available in law. Therefore, the respondent rightly objected to the nomination of Yethiraj. Such nomination, llierelore. does not hind him. We Find force in the stand taken hy the respondent supported by Shri K. Madhava Reddy. " The petitioner has contended that in view of the above position of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court lie is entitled to have the Arbitrator replaced. The learned counsel for the respondent has in reply relied upon the following observations of the Hon hle Supreme Court in B. S. Bindru v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 2454:- "it is settled law lhal Court cannot interpose and interdict the appointment of. an arbitrator, whom the parlies have chosen under the lerms ol the contract unless legal misconduct of the arbitrator, fraud, disqualification etc. is pleaded and proved. It is not in the power of the