Back
2014 Supreme(All) 708
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MEERUT ....Applicant
Versus
M/s. HIMGIRI INDUSTRIES, MUZAFFARNAGAR .....Respondent
(Civil Misc. Arbitration And Conciliation Application No. 5 of 2011, decided on 7th April, 2014)
Counsel :
Saurabh Srivastava for the Applicant.
Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment—New arbitrators—Petitioner had lost faith in the Arbitral tribunal on account of certain interlocutory orders passed by the arbitrator—As per provisions where a challenge is made regarding authority of arbitrator, fails before the tribunal, the arbitral proceedings should continue and after the award made, the party might apply for setting aside the arbitral award—Act did not contemplate the removal of an arbitrator through process of the Court in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act, so as to appoint a new arbitrator—Hence no ground to accept the prayer. [Paras 5, 6 and 7]
Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The petition was filed on 11.1.2011 and since then it has been listed number of times, but no one has turned up to press this petition. It has been adjourned at least about ten times and on several occasion due to illness of learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Today, also no one stands up to argue it.
3. In view of the above, I have gone through the petition and its annexures.
4. This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed with a prayer to appoint a new arbitrator as there are justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality of the arbitrator who is seized with the matter.
5. The petitioner had appointed an Arbitrator on 11.5.2010 for settling the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator has so appointed entered into arbitration. It appears that the petitioner has lost faith in the Arbitral tribunal on account of certain interlocutory orders passed by the arbitrator. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition for the appointment of new arbitrator.
6. Section 11 of the Act authorizes the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him, to appoint an arbitrator where the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator as per the procedure agreed by them or where the mandate of the arbitrator is determined.
7. The authority of the arbitrator can be challenged under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act on the ground that he is not working independently or impartially whereupon it is for the arbitral tribunal to rule about it. Section 13 of the Act provides that if a challenge so made fails before the tribunal, the arbitral proceedings shall continue and after the award is made, the parties may apply for setting aside the arbitral award in accordance with Section 34 of the Act and challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Act does not contemplate for removal of an arbitrator through process of the Court or in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act so as to appoint a new arbitrator.
8. In view of the above, I find no ground to accept the prayer of the petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
