Minimal judicial intervention during ongoing arbitration proceedings and the need to raise objections at the appropriate stage.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

(i) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 02-02-2001 (Annexure P-14) as illegal and void.

(ii) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to declare that the respondent No.2 to respondent No.7 have no authority or jurisdiction to act as arbitrators, by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction.

(iii) Without prejudice to the aforesaid reliefs, alternatively it is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to appoint an independent and impartial or a body to act as arbitrator to adjudicate, in the interest of justice.

(iv) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

2. Basically, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02-02-2001 (Annexure P/14) whereby his objection filed under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.

3. During the course of arguments, Shri Pancholi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised various points. It is submitted that some members of Arbitral Tribunal were defendants in the earlier civil suit. Hence, they cannot impartially decide the instant dispute. He submits that such biased members cannot form part of the Tribunal. In addition, it is submitted that as per terms of tender (Clause 23 and 25) (Annexure R/1), it is clear that the decision taken by Purchase Committee shall be final and binding. In addition, if Clause 7 of the Agreement is read with Clause 4 (d), it will be clear like noonday that the matter is not arbitrable by the committee. By Annexure P/2 dated 15-11-1993 and Annexure P/7, the lot of papers supplied by the petitioner were rejected by the respondents. This decision, as per Clause 4 (d) is conclusive and binding on the Contractor. Hence, as per Clause 7, the matter is not arbitrable. He further submits that no one can be a judge in his own cause. In support of aforesaid contentions, synopsis and additional synopsis are filed by the petitioner. In the synopsis, it is urged that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents. In the said civil suit, an application under Section 34 of the Act was filed by the respondents for sending the matter for resolution of dispute by the Arbitrator. The said application was rejected by the Civil Court. Aggrieved, Civil Revision No.1117/99 was filed by the respondents, which was decided on 03-05-2000 (Annexure P/9). This Court considered the arbitration clause and opined that there exists a dispute and hence Arbitrator needs to be appointed. The said order was challenged by petitioner before the Supreme Court. The SLP was withdrawn but the Apex Court by order dated 28-09-2000 (Annexure P/10) granted liberty to the petitioner to raise objection in the arbitration proceedings. The order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No.1117/99 got merged in the order of Supreme Court. Shri Pancholi has taken pains to submit that the Arbitral Tribunal as per Section 16 of the Act may decide about its own jurisdiction. He placed reliance on various judgments to submit that the aspect of "exception clause" in the agreement should be left open to be decided by Arbitrator and cannot be decided while referring the dispute for arbitration. In nutshell, Shri Pancholi contended that while deciding the Civil Revision No.1117/99, this Court had no occasion to decide the aspect of "exception clause" or jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal. In view of the liberty given by Supreme Court, objections were raised which were erroneously decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. Hence, this petition is maintainable. Heavy reliance is placed on the interim order dated 04-05-2001 passed in this petition. It is urged that in vi