The court emphasized minimal judicial interference in arbitral proceedings and held that the challenge to the Arbitrator's mandate should be made after the arbitral award is made, as per Section 13(5) of the 1996 Act.

SHEEL NAGU, J.

1. The writ jurisdiction of this court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution and/or in alternative supervisory jurisdiction of this court u/Art 227 of the Constitution is invoked seeking writ of certiorari or mandamus for terminating the mandate of sole Arbitrator, respondent No.2 herein conducting arbitral proceedings for resolving the dispute between the rival parties arising out of Agreement dated 7/12/2005.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that Arbitrator, respondent No.2 is biased. It is submitted that cross-examination conducted by the Arbitrator is not recorded on the very same day but behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner is made to sign the order-sheet on the subsequent date of hearing which does not truly reflect the proceedings of the preceding date. It is further submitted that the Arbitrator is an employee of respondent No.1-Corporation. It is further submitted that no procedure has been specified by the Arbitrator for conduction of the proceedings in terms of section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for brevity the Act of 1996. It is also submitted that more than sufficient and due opportunity was afforded to the respondent No.1-Corporation to file statement of the defence. In this background, it is submitted that impartiality of the respondent No.2-Arbitrator is doubtful. It is submitted that this impelled the petitioner to prefer an application under section 12 of the 1996 Act, P/13 on the ground of the Arbitrator not being impartial and independent and thus seeking withdrawal of the Arbitrator. It is submitted that vide P/16 on 8/12/2015, the Arbitrator rejected the said application and declined to withdraw from the proceedings. Thus, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to assail the Award of the Arbitrator under section 34 of the Act 1996 in terms of Section 13(5) of the 1996 Act. The instances of impartiality and lack of independence on the part of the Arbitrator are denied by submitting that it is the petitioner who is delaying the proceedings by making unnecessary repeated objections on every hearing. Thus, dismissal of the petition is sought.

5. The entire controversy involved herein revolves around the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, 1996. Therefore for ready reference and convenience, both the provisions are reproduced below:-

"12 Grounds for challenge

(1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality.

(2) An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall, without delay, disclose to the parties in writing any circumstances referred to in sub section (1) unless they have already been informed of them by him.

(3) An arbitrator may be challenged only if -

(a) Circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, or

(b) he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties.

(4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reason, of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.

13 Challenge procedure.

(1) Subject to sub-section (4), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator.

(2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (1), a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstances referred to in subsection

(3) of section 12, send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal. (3) Unless the arbitrator challenged under sub-section (2)