JUDGMENT :

[Per : Manoj Kumar Vyas, J.]

1. By way of this special appeal challenge has been made to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 24.02.2021 by which the writ petition filed by the appellants, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a coordinate Bench of this court vide its order dated 02.04.2018 appointed Mr. Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred as ‘the Act of 1996’). Subsequently Mr. Justice Dinesh Chandra Somani (Retd.) was appointed as Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 15.12.2018. The order dated 15.12.2018 was challenged by way of review petition by the appellants and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2019. The claimant-respondent had filed claim petition before the Sole Arbitrator seeking two sets of claim i.e. (i) for 1,05,45,760/- and (ii) for 1,77,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till its realization. During the course of arbitral proceedings the Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 28.04.2019 determined his fees at Rs. 06,48,696/- as per Section 11(14) read with Schedule-IV of the Act of 1996. The Sole Arbitrator had also mentioned that the claimant had not quantified the amount of interest till submission of the statement of claim / commencement of the arbitral proceedings and the parties were directed to quantify the amount of interest as claimed in the statement of claim and the same was to be submitted on the next date of hearing. It was also mentioned that after quantification of amount of interest, fees of the arbitral Tribunal would be redetermined accordingly. Thereafter the claimant filed an application quantifying the interest and a sum of 11,17,00,000/- was claimed as interest till - the submission of the claim petition. On the basis of this, the Sole Arbitrator rescheduled the fees vide order dated 09.08.2019 and calculated the fees as per sub-section (14) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 and Schedule-IV appended thereto at Rs. 19,21,366/-. The Sole Arbitrator, when found that the fees was not paid, passed the order dated 24.02.2020 directing the officer-in-charge to file a detailed affidavit, asking certain explanations as to what steps were being taken for payment of arbitral Tribunal’s fees. A review petition was filed against the order dated 24.02.2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2020. The arbitral proceedings were continued after dismissal of the review petition and the matter was fixed for final arguments. The final arguments were partly heard and 07.11.2020 was fixed as the next date for final arguments. At that stage, the appellants filed an application under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1996 before learned Commercial Court No. 1, Jaipur MetropolitanII. The court below came to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner-appellants had no merit and accordingly the application was rejected. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by learned court below, the appellants preferred the writ petition, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.02.2021. Hence this special appeal.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 38 and 39 of the Act of 1996. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record available on the file carefully.

5. The relevant provisions of the Act of 1996 are reproduced as under :-

“13. Challenge procedure.—

(1) Subject to sub-section (4), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator.

(2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (1), a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any c