JUDGMENT

1. In all the above Original Petitions (O.Ps), appointment of Arbitrator by the first respondent, is put to challenge on the ground that 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 case reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 (Parkins Eastman Architects DPC and another Vs. HSCC (India) Limited). Hence, unilateral appointment of arbitrator P.Rosaiah, is in contravention of the provisions of the said Act and also the said decision of the Supreme Court.

2. Short facts which gave rise to the filing of the present Original Petitions (O.Ps) are that the petitioners have approached the first respondent- Company for a vehicle loan facility. A loan agreement was entered into between the parties on 13.02.2019 and loans were advanced by the first respondent-Company to the petitioners repayable by 60 monthly instalments. Dispute arose under the agreement on the alleged non-payment of the loan amounts and the first respondent-Company invoked the arbitration clause and issued notice dated 20.07.2021, calling upon the petitioners 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. Subsequently, one Mr.P.Rosaiah, a retired District Judge was appointed as Arbitrator by the first respondent-Company.

3. The present O.Ps. are filed challenging the specific clause in the agreement for appointment of Arbitrator and also notice appointing the Arbitrator on the ground that the first respondent-Company cannot unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator in terms of the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Arbitrator appointed by the first respondent-Company appeared to be their paid employee and as such, he cannot be expected to 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 the due process of law, by unjustly helping the first respondent-Company to recover the monies which were clearly time-barred and unsustainable in law.

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 the 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, by the first respondent-Company. Moreover, the Courts have frowned upon such unilateral appointment of Arbitrator and held that such appointment cannot be countenanced in law.

7. On the above significant grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the notice by the first respondent-Company, appointing the Arbitrator and the consequential arbitral proceedings.

8. The learned counsel while referring to the above decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 (Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd) on the aspect of unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 21, 24 and 25 therein, which are extracted hereunder:

"21. But, in our view that has to be the logical deduct