The duty of the Arbitrator to adopt a 'judicial approach' and act in a fair, reasonable, and objective manner.

GITA MITTAL, J.

1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the ‘Arbitration Act’) assails the order dated 15th February, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing OMP 490/2011 filed by M/S TDI International India Ltd. (respondent herein – ‘TDI’ hereafter) under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

2. By way of OMP 490/2011, TDI had laid objections to the Arbitral Award dated 19th April, 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator in disputes between TDI and the Airport Authority of India (appellant herein – ‘AAI’ hereafter).

3. It is unfortunate that the present appeal relates to an invitation issued by the AAI inviting applications as back as in the year 1993 for advertisement rights at the Hyderabad Airport. Pursuant to this notice, inviting applications, a license for advertisement was awarded to TDI as the successful tenderer. TDI was the successful tenderer in subsequent tenders as well issued by the AAI between 18th April, 2001 to 17th April, 2006 as well as for the period 18th April, 2006 to 30th April, 2008 ( which was by way of a supplementary license agreement executed on 23rd March, 2007).

4. It appears that TDI made a complaint with regard to parallel advertisement being permitted by the AAI, contending that this was in the nature of a breach of contract. On 4th July, 2008, TDI also invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties resulting in AAI appointing a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute.

5. These arbitration proceedings culminated in an Award dated 19th April, 2011 against the TDI.

6. Inasmuch as the challenge to the Arbitral Award before the learned Single Judge was primarily on account of the failure of the Arbitrator to follow a judicial approach, it becomes necessary to note the manner in which the Arbitrator proceeded in the arbitration. TDI admittedly filed its claim on 15th September, 2008 which was responded to by the AAI on 5th January, 2009. Rejoinder thereto was filed on 11th February, 2009 by TDI. A sur-rejoinder thereto was filed on 24th March, 2009 by the AAI.

7. It is an admitted position that only two sittings took place before the sole Arbitrator. On 2nd May, 2009, a sitting was held before the Arbitrator. The proceedings in this sitting have been set out in para 5 of the impugned order which reads as follows :

“(1) Sole Arbitrator had his first sitting at the conference room of Hyderabad/Begumpet Airport at 1100 Hrs on 2 May 2009.

(2) The claimant was represented by Sh. Prem Bajaj, MD, TDI and the Respondent was represented by officer Sh. K.S.Rao, DGM (Commercial).

(3) Claimant was given the opportunity to present an oral submission of the synopsis of the case.

(4) At appropriate times, the respondent was also given opportunity for his views.

(5) Thereafter, a site visit was undertaken to get more in depth view, of the case on hand.”

8. A second sitting was held on 23rd June, 2010. The proceedings in this sitting have been set out in para 6 of the Award in the following terms :

“(1) The second sitting was also held at Hyderabad on 23 June 2010, to hear the oral evidence of both the parties.

(2) Sh. P.K. Bhan, Chief Strategist, represented the claimant duly authorized vide M/s. TDI Letter dated 21 June 2010 (signed by Sh. Prem Bajaj) and Sh. K.S. Rao, DGM (Commercial) represented the respondent.”

9. It is not disputed by Mr. K.K. Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant before us that there were no further sittings at all after the 23rd of June, 2010.

10. The entire Arbitral record was produced and carefully scrutinized by the learned Single Judge while hearing OMP 490/2011. The learned Single Judge has noted in para 6 of the impugned order dated 15th February, 2017 that there was no order at all passed by the learned Arbitrator noting that any evidence has been recorded; that he has heard arguments of either side; that arguments on either sides were closed. The learned Single Judge has specifically noted t