The main legal point established is that an arbitrator's misconduct, including demanding additional fees during proceedings and placing restrictions on parties, can vitiate the arbitration award.

JUDGMENT :

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned First Appeals against Order, as they arise out of the similar set of facts and involving similar question of law. These four appeals have been filed seeking to challenge the impugned judgments passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the award of the Arbitrator has been dismissed.

2. A few facts need to be noticed in the instant appeal, which are being taken from FAO No. 3707 of 2012, which seeks to challenge the order dated 7.1.2012 of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who has dismissed the objections filed against the award of the Arbitrator dated 29.4.2005.

3. In nutshell, the appellant M/s Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, entered into an agreement pertaining to milling of paddy and delivery of rice by the Miller respondent in these appeals. On account of a dispute that arose between the parties, an Arbitrator was appointed by letter dated 5.10.2000 and his fee was fixed to be paid at Rs.4,000/- to be shared in equal by the appellants and the respondents. The fee of Rs.4,000/- was to be paid for the first case and negotiable on the lower side for similar type of cases. Having accepted the appointment, the Arbitrator entered into a reference and adjudicated upon the dispute. He dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant herein and allowed the counter-claim of the Miller. Aggrieved against the said award and the conduct of the Arbitrator, objections were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (henceforth called 'the Act of 1996'), which was dismissed, leading to the instant appeals.

4. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, urges that the Arbitrator has conducted himself in a fashion which does not behoove that of an arbitrator. After having accepted fee of Rs.4,000/- per case, apart from travelling allowance, he subsequently started to claim an enhanced fee on the ground that he was an experienced Arbitrator. By his letter dated 19.6.2002, he pointed out to the administration of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation that he was a practicing Arbitrator for the last 20 years and is also on the panel of Arbitrators of the Arbitration Council and his fee was in the range from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per hearing. It is also argued that the Department thereafter terminated his appointment with immediate effect by order dated 20.3.2003, endorsed on 25.3.2003 and consequently appointed another Arbitrator by order dated 3.4.2003. However, despite the appointment of the Arbitrator having been terminated by passing a specific order, the Arbitrator did not hand over the files and rather continued with the arbitration proceedings and, therefore, any award thereafter is not sustainable. It is also argued that bias of the Arbitrator can be seen as mentioned in the award itself that he allowed a counter claim to filed as late as 13.9.2004 i.e. 50th proceedings before the Arbitrator. It is also urged that the arbitrator ought to have disclosed his fee structure before entering into reference, while relying upon the provision of Section 12 of the Act of 1996.

5. Per contra, Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, contends that the Arbitrator was appointed at the instance of the appellant herein, who entered the reference on 20.10.2000. Thereafter, the appellants themselves filed the claim on 24.5.2001, to which written statement was filed and subsequently they filed revised claim on 3.12.2001, to which another written statement and counter-claim was filed on 26.3.2003 and a second revised claim was filed by the appellant to which again the respondents filed its written statement and a counter claim was filed on 13.9.2004. It is contended that having participated in the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the appellant cannot turn