Allegations of bias against an arbitrator must show real likelihood of prejudice, not mere suspicion; participation in proceedings waives objections.

1This is an appeal by Lucky Home Co - operative Group Housing Society Limited against the orders of the Learned single Judge dated 4th March, 1994 in OMP No. 64 / 92. The appellant before us was the petitioner in that application filed under S.5, S.8, S.11, S.12 and S.31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 . The lst respondent was M / s. Shanti Developers and Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., M - 4, Anupam Bhawan, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Azadpur Delhi - 110003 and the second respondent was Arbitrator Mr. A. Shankaran.

2. The appellant prayed in that application that the authority of the Arbitrator be revoked and another Arbitrator, preferably a retired Judge of the Court be appointed for adjudication of the claims and counter claims of the parties.1A 9548 / 92 was also filed by the appellant in the said OMP and there was an interim order on 31st July,1992 in this appeal that the Arbitrator would not make and publish the award and that he could proceed with the matter and the appellant society was to participate in the proceedings.

3. The following are the facts: The first respondent - contractor was engaged in connection with the construction of 78 houses for the appellant Society. The contract was in the year 1988. Three years thereafter, disputes arose and the respondent - contractor moved a petition under S.20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator, which was registered as Suit No. 479 / 91. This Court appointed the second respondent. Mr. A. Sankaran, as the Arbitrator on 18-21991. He was Additional Director General, Central P.W.D. (Retired). The fee of the Arbitrator was fixed at Rs.10,000 /- to be paid by the parties. In another order in IA 1045 / 91 passed on the same date, the Court appointed Mr. S. P. Kapil, retired Chief Engineer of Delhi Development Authority as Local Commissioner for carrying out certain measurements at the site in the presence of the parties or their representatives.

4. The Arbitrator entered on the reference on 9th March,1991. The contractor filed the statement of facts on 25th March, 1991 and the petitioner society filed its statement of facts on 3rd June, 1994. The preliminary hearing before the Arbitrator was held on 3rd July, 1991. The time for making the award was extended by mutual consent up to 26th December, 1991. Thereafter in IA 1520 / 91, further orders were passed on 11th February, 1992 extending the time by four months or passing of the award from the date of fresh first hearing to be given by the Arbitrator. The first date of hearing was fixed as 20th April, 1992. The Local Commissioner who was appointed to carry out measurements of the construction made by the first respondent filed his report into Court on 20th April,1992. The Arbitrator permitted the parties to file their objections on or before l5th May, 1992 and the reply to the objections was to be filed before 25th May, 1992 and rejoinder to the reply before 5th June, 1992. The parties were also directed to pay Rs. 300 /- each for getting photocopies of the measurement book and the case was adjourned to 13th July, 1992 to be continued on 14th and 15th July, 1992.

5. The first respondent filed objections against the Local Commissioner's report on 26th May, 1992 but the appellant society did not file its objections till 5th June, 1992 as directed by the Arbitrator, Accordingly the Arbitrator by his letter dated 5th June, 1992 directed the appellant to file its objections as also reply to the objections to be filed before 19th June, 1992.

6. The present OMP was filed at that stage by the appellant - society on 16th July, 1992 praying that the authorit