The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings and the specific grounds for termination of the Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation Limited has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 11.02.2014, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 14(2) and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This revision petition was filed after the delay of more than 2 years.

2. The respondent-company was awarded a contract for construction of raw water reservoir channel and pump house at the Panipat Refinery.

3. The agreement between the parties contained arbitration clause for resolution of the disputes. Respondent-contractor filed an application under Section 11 of the Act and the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat appointed Sh. Ajit Commar Roy, retired Chief Engineer of PWD, located in Orissa as the sole Arbitrator. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge was challenged before the High Court but later on the revision was withdrawn with liberty to raise the question of limitation and the non-existence of any dispute between the parties before the Arbitrator itself. Even a review application was filed by the petitioner, which was also disposed of permitting the petitioner to challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator before the Arbitrator itself. The petitioner moved an application under Section 16(2) read with Section 16(5) of the Act before the learned Arbitrator, challenging the proceedings on the following grounds:-

(i) The propriety of the appointment of Shri Ajit Coomar Roy as Arbitrator;

(ii) The existence of the Arbitration Agreement; and

(iii) The existence of any Notified claim (much less a notified claim included in the Final Bill in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6.6.3.0 of the GCC) so as to bring the claims of the Respondent within the ambit of the Arbitration Agreement embodied in Clause 9.0.1.0 of the GCC or the jurisdiction of the Ld. Arbitrator."

4. The sole Arbitrator rejected the application vide order dated 29.12.2006. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator proceeded with the arbitration proceedings. Once again another application was made to the Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator passed an order on 09.05.2007, operative part thereof is as under:-

"The adjudication of the dispute whether each claim of the Claimant is tenable with respect to arbitration clause and relevant clauses of the contract is dependent upon scrutiny and proper interpretation of relevant clauses of the agreement. Therefore, parties have been given opportunity to place their respective relevant materials, documents, evidence and their respective contentions with respect to each claim of the claimant in course of the hearing of the proceeding on merit."

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, requesting the Arbitrator to recuse himself from the office of Sole Arbitrator in the proceedings or alternatively decide on the challenge to his continuing in his office as the Sole Arbitrator on the grounds stated in the said application. The learned Arbitrator disposed of the application while recording thus:-

"Therefore, for conducting further proceedings, I order that claimant is to place its evidence to substantiate the arbitrability of its each claim in terms of arbitration agreement and contract clauses."

6. The petitioner even thereafter gave notice to the sole Arbitrator under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act requesting him not to proceed further in the arbitration as his mandate had been terminated.

7. The petitioner filed a Arbitration Case No.1/2008 under Sections 14(2) and 15(2) of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, which has been dismissed, subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

8. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the orders passed by the learned Arbitrator from time to ti