Revocation of an arbitrator’s authority requires demonstrating reasonable apprehension of bias, which must be substantiated.

1. By this petition under S.5, S.11 and S.12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act), the petitioner seeks leave to revoke the authority and removal of respondent No. 1, the sole arbitrator named in the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 18 March 1993, between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, M/s. Binatone Computers Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) and in his place appointment of an independent arbitrator, on the ground that he has misconducted himself and the proceedings in a manner which has created reasonable apprehension in their mind that the arbitrator is biased.

2. The petition is resisted by respondent No. 2 on the plea that it discloses no cause for revocation of the authority of the sole arbitrator and the present petition is a mala fide attempt on the part of the petitioner to cause delay in the arbitration proceedings, which are now at the stage of cross - examination of the claimant's witnesses.

3. I have heard Mr. Atul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the claimant, at some length, who have also taken me through various orders passed by the learned arbitrator during the course of proceedings before him.

4. The petitioner herein, M/s. Setech Electronics Limited, a duly incorporated company, is a manufacturer of audio systems. On 12 March, 1993, they entered into a contract with the claimant for using their brand name "Binatone" for which the claimant was to be paid royalty by the petitioner. The contract contained arbitration clause, naming respondent No. 1 to be the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes / differences, if any, arising under the terms of the said contract between the parties. It is common ground that on disputes arising, the matter was referred to the said arbitrator. On direction, the claimant filed their claim statement and the petitioner filed counter claims, on which they were directed to file affidavits by way of evidence. During the course of proceedings, on 23 April, 1997, the petitioner filed two applications, one dated 18 April, 1997 and the other dated 23 April, 1997. The application dated 18 April, 1997 was under O.11 R.12, CPC for a direction to the claimant to make discovery of all the documents in their possession or power relating to the dispute, specially relating to the litigation between the claimant and one M/s. Harman Agencies and its sister concern M/s. Binatone Electronics Limited, pending in this Court and the City Civil Court, Chandigarh, to the effect that the said concern had claimed to be the exclusive owners of the trade name "Binatone" and that the claimant herein was wrongly claiming royalty in respect of it. In the second application, dated 23 April, 1997, the petitioner had prayed that the arbitrator should give a speaking and reasoned award. It appears that the claimant filed an affidavit dated 19 April, 1997 by way of evidence incorporating certain documents. The petitioner was asked to cross - examine the claimant's deponent, on which they submitted that it may be deferred till the documents referred to in the affidavit were supplied. On 23 April, 1997, the arbitrator disposed of the first application, dated 18 April, 1997, with a direction to the claimant to produce the documents (CW 1/1 to CW 1/7) referred to in the affidavit on the following date i.e. 24 April, 1997. On 24 April, 1997, the claimant produced two of the documents referred to in the affidavit. Regarding some other documents, they said that these were not in their possession or power, having been sent to Binatone Electronics PLC, UK. On that date, the petition