JUDGMENT

1. In all the above Original Petitions (O.Ps), appointment of Arbitrator, vide reference dated 30.12.2019 by the first respondent, is put to challenge on two grounds, that, one the same is illegal and void in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India on the subject matter. According to the petitioner, the arbitration clause in the agreement is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the cases reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 (Parkins Eastman Architects DPC and another Vs. HSCC (India) Limited) and 2021 (5) SCC 738 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Nortel Networks India Private Limited). Hence, unilateral appointment of arbitrator P.Rosaiah, is in contravention of the provisions of the said Act and also the said decisions of the Supreme Court.

2. Short facts which gave rise to the filing of the present Original Petitions (O.Ps) are that the petitioner has approached the first respondent- Company for the vehicle loan facility which was executed by them on 19.03.2013 (in O.P.No.360 of 2021), 16.03.2013 (in O.P.No.361 of 2021) and 20.03.2013 (in O.P.No.362 of 2021) and loans were advanced and be repaid in instalments as stipulated in the agreement. Dispute arose under the agreement and therefore, the first respondent-Company unilaterally invoked the arbitration clause and issued notice on 30.12.2019, calling upon the petitioner for payment of the outstanding amounts due to them and in case of any default of the payment, the dispute will be referred to sole arbitrator and accordingly, Mr.P.Rosaish, a retired District Judge was appointed as Arbitrator.

3. The present O.Ps. are filed challenging the said agreement and also notice dated 30.12.2019 unilaterally appointing the Arbitrator on the ground that the first respondent-Company cannot unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator and that the reference to arbitration is beyond the period of limitation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the present appointment of Arbitrator is almost a paid employee of the first respondent-Company and he cannot conduct impartial arbitration proceedings. According to the learned counsel, cyclo-styled format is being followed by the said Arbitrator and the very same Arbitrator had conducted numerous proceedings without following any due process of law and illegally helping the first respondent-Company to recover the monies which were clearly time-barred and not due to them.

5. In the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, no semblance of principles of natural justice is being followed and many a time, the Arbitrator operates from the first respondent-Company's address. As a matter of fact, it is imperative on the part of the learned Arbitrator to disclose his past and present relationship with the interested parties. The learned counsel also cited a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sawarmal Gadodia Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, in Arb.P.No.562 of 2019, in which, by order dated 15.05.2019, the Award was set aside on the ground that non-disclosure of relationship, was fatal.

6. In the above circumstances, the borrower cannot expect impartial consideration of his or her defence against the claim. Moreover, the Courts have frowned upon such unilateral appointment of Arbitrator and held that such appointment cannot be countenanced in law. Apart from the same, the proceedings are also hit by law of limitation, since the agreement was entered into in 2013 and the arbitration notice was issued only in 2019, much after the expiry of limitation. There is nothing on record to show that the limitation was extended by the act of the parties.

7. On the above significant grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the notice appointing the Arbitrator.

8. The learned counsel while referring to the above decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 (