The court may appoint an alternative arbitrator if the designated arbitrator is biased, ensuring fair arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act.

1. This is a first appeal from order filed under S.39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 . The appeal has been filed on behalf of the Domestic Engineering Installations Gorakhpur through its partner Sri Gorakh Mohan Das (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). The respondent to this appeal is Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as defendant).

2. The order appealed against is an order purported to have been passed under S.20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The plaintiff filed an application under S. 20 of the Act alleging inter alia the facts given hereinunder. The defendant invited sealed tenders in August, 1964 for carrying out the work of laying Main Sewerage in the Fertilizer's Township. The plaintiff submitted its tender which was eventually accepted by the defendant on or about 20th October 1964. The work - order dated 19/20th October 1964 was issued to the plaintiff which contained in detail the various terms of the contract. It was also noted therein that the work had to be executed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tenders (hereinafter referred to as "NIT") and the general direction and conditions of contract (hereinafter referred to as "GDCC"). Clause 65 of the G. D. C. C. contained arbitration clause which provided for the settlement of disputes arising under the contract. When the plaintiff started executing the work, it found that it was required to do certain work which was wholly different from the work tendered for. The plaintiff further met with the difficulty that the Engineer Incharge of the work on behalf of the defendant neglected to give adequate instructions to the plaintiff as required by the terms of the contract. Certain major disputes arose during the course of the work. Accordingly, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 17th December 1964 to the General Manager of the defendant in accordance with Cl. 65 of G. D. C. C. calling upon him to himself act as arbitrator or nominate some one else to act as arbitrator and to refer the dispute to arbitration. The General Manager did not take any action on the notice sent by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, sent a reminder on 13th January 1965. Thereafter, Shri Gorakh Mohan Das partner of the plaintiff firm personally met Shri N. R. Sheshadari, the then General Manager of the defendant. The plaintiff requested Mr. Sheshadari to proceed in the matter of arbitration but he refused to act as arbitrator and showed his unwillingness to appoint any other arbitrator. It was under those circumstances that the plaintiff proceeded to file his application under S.20 of the Act on the 18th January 1965. The plaintiff prayed that the agreement be ordered to be filed and the dispute be referred for arbitration. The proceedings initiated by the plaintiff proceeded as a suit as required by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act and the application was treated to be the plaint in that suit. Some further facts were incorporated in the plaint as a result of the order of the Court below allowing the plaintiff to make amendments therein.

4. The additional facts introduced in the plaint are that in May 1965, Mr. N. R. Sheshadari was replaced by Mr. B. K. Khanna as General Manager. Shri Gorakh Mohan Dass approached Shri B. K. Khanna also and requested him to settle the dispute that had arisen under the contract. Mr. B. K. Khanna is said to have first assured the plaintiff that he would try to give necessary relief to the plaintiff, but later on, he went back upon his words and insisted that the plaintiff should withdraw his petitio