ORDER :

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.

1. These two appeals are decided together by this common order, as the issues involved in both the appeals are same.

SB CMA No. 2855/2017:-

2. The appellant - M/s. Shastarinagar Gas Service has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 13th February, 2017 passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act of 1996") rejecting the application filed by the appellant against the award dated 19th February, 2016, passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

3. The appellant was appointed as distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in 1995. The respondents had carried out surprise inspection and refill audit on 8th September, 2012. The respondents, in their inspection, found following major/minor irregularities at the distributorship:-

a) Out of turn refill delivery to 331 customers.

b) Customer signatures are not being taken on refill vouchers.

c) 103 cylinders were shown delivered in Indsoft but actually not delivered to the consumers as per their Blue Book.

4. The appellant filed reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations of diversion of cylinders for non-domestic use and further, affidavits of consumers and documents were also submitted.

5. The respondents, vide order dated 6th June, 2013, imposed penalty of Rs. 1,42,526/- as violation of 2nd MDG (Marketing Discipline Guidelines) during last two years and adjusted recovery from the current account of the appellant.

6. The appellant invoked arbitration clause and requested to appoint the Arbitrator as per Clause No. 37 of the agreement, executed between the parties.

7. The respondents appointed their own officer one Shri A.V. Rajan, Chief Manager (Engineer), IOCL as Arbitrator.

8. The appellant submitted his claim before the Arbitrator and raised objections with regard to conducting arbitration proceedings with prejudice attitude.

9. The respondent - Corporation filed reply to the claim petition and further rejoinder was filed and the issues were framed by the Arbitrator on 15th October, 2014.

10. Since, the Arbitrator was not conducting arbitration in proper and fair manner, the appellant filed petition under Sections 14 & 15 of the Act of 1996 before the High Court to terminate the mandate of arbitrator and substitute the arbitrator. The matter was sub-judice before the High Court, however, the Arbitrator continued the proceedings and pronounced the ex-parte award on 19th February, 2016.

11. The appellant, feeling aggrieved against the ex-parte award dated 19th February, 2016, filed application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

12. The appellant raised various grounds in the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and following main grounds were raised:

(a) The Arbitrator did not declare his interest under Section 12 of the Act of 1996, as he was working in the respondent's office as officer.

(b) The Arbitrator was not independent and he was working with prejudice mind.

(c) The proceedings were not conducted by the Arbitrator as per law and no process was drawn with consent of the parties.

(d) No opportunity of hearing was given and cross-examination was not allowed to the witness of the respondents and award was passed ex-parte.

(e) The award was not containing any reason and the same was against the law and public policy of India.

13. The Additional District & Session Judge, vide order dated 13th February, 2017, rejected the application of the appellant after considering four issues, which were framed during hearing of the application. The Court below confirmed the award dated 19th February, 2016.

14. The appellant, in his appeal, has raised following grounds:

(i) The Court below has failed to consider the legal aspect that the Arbitrator was required to declare his interest under Section 12(i) of the Act of 1996 but he failed to do so. The Arbitrator was under control of the respondents and as such, he was not free and independent.

(ii) The Arbitrator failed to draw process of conducting arbitration proceedings as