JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the the impugned award dated 25.03.2017 made in ARB/NK/M/06 of 2015.)

(This case has been heard through video conference)

1. The challenge has been made against the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 25.03.2017 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs only).

2. The dispute said to have been referred to the Sole Arbitrator by the claimant with regard to the loan agreement dated 15.03.2012 said to have been executed between the parties. As the respondent has committed default, the matter has been referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator was appointed and after considering the materials, the learned Arbitrator had passed the award.

3. Though several grounds made in this petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that the award cannot be sustained in the eye of law for want of declaration by the Arbitrator and in fact, earlier, some other Arbitrator was appointed by the claimant, who is none other than friend of one Suresh Kumar D. Kochar, who had made an attempt to take over the property of the respondent. It is his contention that previous Arbitrator has recused himself, since he has already appeared as counsel for one of the parties. Thereafter, a notice of invocation said to have been issued by the present Arbitrator on 15.04.2015, which was objected by the claimant indicating that he is also close friend of Suresh Kumar D.Kochar. Despite such objection is made, the learned Arbitrator has issued notice for his appointment without making any mandatory disclosure as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. Besides, the respondent has also filed an objection under Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and sends the same to the Arbitrator by registered post. However, the learned Arbitrator without considering any of the materials, had passed the award that too passing an order under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent/claimant would submit that the learned Arbitrator has considered the counter filed by the respondent on merits including the objections raised under Section 16 of the Act. The respondent having received notice from the learned Arbitrator, failed to appear before the Arbitrator for many hearings and finally, the Arbitrator has no other go to consider and pass orders on merit.

5. Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the respondent and perused the records.

6. Perused the award. Though the award indicates that several opportunities have been given, it is to be noted that the Arbitrator has issued notice dated 15.04.2015 indicating the first sitting on 25.04.2015 to the respondent. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for respondent also by letter dated 5th May 2015 intimated to the claimant about the further hearing and also stated that the further claim petition has been filed before the Arbitrator. It is to be noted that the learned Arbitrator has not issued any proceedings for the hearing notice, whereas the respondent's counsel issued a notice. It is also to be noted that while intimating his appointment, the Arbitrator has not even made mandatory disclosure as required under Section 12 (1) and 12(5) of the Act. Despite the fact that serious objections raised by the respondent/claimant, making allegations that the Arbitrator has close proximity with the party and the previous Arbitrator. When the allegation of bias in the nature of proximity has been raised, the Arbitrator ought to have made mandatory disclosure as required under Section 12(1) and 12(5) of the Act and it has not been done so in this case. Be that as it may. The very proceedings of Arbitrator clearly indicates that though several adjournments said to have been granted, none of the proceedings have been communicated to the parties as required under Section 24(2) of the Act, which is also conf