Point of law: As per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act to nullify the appointments made by the authorities when there is a failure of procedure or where the appointment is ex facie invalid or where there is ex facie contravention of the provisions of the Arbitration Clause.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Arbitration Petition has been filed by the petitioner, invoking Section 11(6) and Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), mainly praying for the following reliefs as contained in paragraph 33 of the petition:

“(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No.2 as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.1;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to appoint any former Judge of the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Sole Arbitrator to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal and adjudicate disputes between the parties under the aforesaid contract;”

2. The short facts necessary for deciding the present petition are that in response to the tenders floated by the respondent No.1 on 2.3.2016 inviting bids for the work of engagement of Security Personnel (Civilians) for various departments `of the respondent No.1 organization for a period of 2 years, the petitioner had submitted their bid, which was accepted by the respondents, by awarding a contract by way of letter of award dated 21.6.2016 for the strength of 120 Work Personnel (Annexure-P/1). As per the contract, the petitioner was required to deploy security staff at various departments and various locations of the respondent No.1 and to pay wages to such employees. However, certain disputes arose as regards the noncompliance of the contract. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 was required to verify the attendance and release the monthly bills of wages to the security personnel, however, despite the repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 did not carry out the verification, nor cleared the monthly bills to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter received a letter from the respondent No.1 on 16.12.2016 alleging that there was a noncompliance of payments of weekly wages to the security personnel. The correspondences ensued between the parties in that regard. Ultimately, the respondent No.1 on 29.6.2017 issued a Notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the contract should not be terminated on the grounds mentioned therein. The petitioner gave a reply to the said show-cause notice denying the allegations made in the same. However, thereafter on 14.8.2017 the respondent No.1 issued a Notice for termination of the contract and forfeited the amount of performance guarantee as well as the detention money.

3. The petitioner, therefore, on 9.10.2017 gave a Notice, calling upon the respondent No.1 to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between them, in terms of Clause 64 of the contract entered into between them. The respondent No.1, on the receipt of the said notice appointed the respondent No.2 as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and communicated to the petitioner vide the letter dated 22.12.2017. The respondent No.1 thereafter on 1.6.2018 addressed a communication to the petitioner stating that the respondent No.2 had quoted Rs.1,20,000/- as his arbitration fees for conducting the arbitration proceedings, and sought the consent from the petitioner to pay 50% of the arbitration fees. The petitioner on 7.6.2017 replied to the said letter, agreeing to pay 50% of the arbitration fees and requested the respondent No.1 to do the needful. The respondent No.1 thereafter on 4.8.2018 addressed a communication to the petitioner appointing the respondent No.2 as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between them. According to the petitioner, the power to appoint an Arbitrator unilaterally having been taken away by virtue of coming into force of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2015, the appointment of the respondent No.2, was in contravention of the said provisions. The petition, therefore, has been filed for quashing and setting aside the said appointment and for appointment of Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disp