JUDGMENT

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.

The instant civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the validity of the entire arbitration proceedings being carried out by the sole Arbitrator (respondent No. 2), appointed by respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner - New India Assurance Company Limited had insured respondent No. 1 in respect of the stocks lying in their workshops in various districts including combustible articles like transformers, oils etc. by way of 'Fire Declaration Policy' (Annexure P-1), as per which respondent No. 1 was insured for the period 18.7.2014 to 17.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.21,54,00,000/-. A fire spread in one of the Warehouses on 3.5.2015 leading to damage of stocks including transformers etc. A Surveyor was appointed on the same day who conducted survey on 4.5.2015 at the insured premises and submitted his report assessing the loss on 22.3.2016 (Annexure P-2), as per which the loss was assessed as Rs. 28,62,476/-. However, as per respondent no. 1, the loss was to the tune of more than Rs. 1.57 crores.

3. A dispute having arisen, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, UHBVNL appointed Shri K.L. Khatri, Chief Engineer (Retired) as sole Arbitrator and conveyed the same to the Insurance Company vide letter dated 10.4.2017. Another letter dated 18.5.2017 (Annexure P-4) was written by respondent no. 1 - UHBVNL addressed to the Arbitrator wherein the Arbitrator was advised not to accept/acknowledge appointment of an Arbitrator by the Insurance Company and he (Sh. K.L.Khatri) was requested to start the arbitration proceedings with a copy to the Insurance Company whereby the Arbitrator was directed to start the arbitration proceedings.

4. In response to letter dated 18.5.2017 (Annexure P-4), the Insurance Company sent a letter through e-mail dated 19.5.2017 (Annexure P-5) to respondent no. 1 stating therein that the appointment of a sole Arbitrator was not acceptable to them and that the proceedings, if any, conducted by the sole Arbitrator shall be null and void.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings being conducted by the sole Arbitrator appointed by the Managing Director of respondent no. 1 - UHBVNL are null and void and against the spirit of arbitration and that the unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator also militates against the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020)20 SCC 760, wherein it has been held that in case a sole Arbitrator is appointed by a person, who himself has an interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, such appointment could have element of bias.

6. It has further been submitted that as per Clause 13 of the 'Standard Fires and Special Perils Policy' annexed with the Insurance Policy (Annexure P-1), the sole Arbitrator can be appointed only by consent of both the parties and in case there is no consensus then both the parties would appoint their own Arbitrator and such Arbitrator would, thereafter, nominate a third Arbitrator and thus, the arbitration was to be conducted by a Three Member Tribunal of Arbitrators. The learned counsel in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submissions regarding unilateral appointment having been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court, has pressed into service Perkins Eastman's case (supra).

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondent No.1- UHBVNL submitted that the instant petition which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable so a