A party participating in arbitration waives the right to challenge arbitrator's appointment unless objections are raised during the proceedings, emphasizing the need for timely action in arbitration matters.

12th May 2023 Per,

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Vinay Choudhary in whose favor an Award was made has challenged the judgment dated 17th July 2018 passed in Original Suit No.36 of 2018 by which the Award has been set-aside.

2. The initial dispute which arose between the parties pertained to partnership deed dated 2nd May 2002 executed between Vinay Choudhary and Sumit Sanwaria with an understanding that the partnership business shall continue in the name and style of M/s Chhotanagpur Hard Coke Industries and the principal place of business shall remain at Lal Bazar within Jharia PO in the district of Dhanbad. This partnership deed was executed after Rajendar Sawariya and Alok Sawariya who were the uncles and Amit Sanwaria who is the brother of Sumit Sanwaria had agreed to dissolve the earlier partnership deed – it was dissolved on 1st May 2002. As per the re-constituted partnership deed dated 2nd May 2002, the partners were required to make capital investment for carrying on the business with a provision for interest @ 7% per annum to the partners on the credit balance lying in their respective capital account. It was further agreed upon between the parties that the first account of the re-constituted partnership business shall be closed on 31st March 2003 and, thereafter, every year profit and/or loss shall be determined as on 31st March and shall be shared 50% by both the partners. It was mutually agreed between them that each partner shall be authorized to open, operate or close the banking account either independently or jointly in the name and on behalf of the Firm. There was also a stipulation in the partnership deed that any partner may retire from the business by giving one month's notice in writing to the other partner of his intention to do so. However, such notice shall not be necessary if a partner retires with the consent of the other or the remaining partners.

3. This is the case set up by the claimant that the other partner has mis-appropriated the funds and profits accrued on business. Sumit Sanwaria who is the other partner has set up a defence that the claimant expressed his desire to retire after October 2004 from the partnership and, accordingly, accounts were prepared/reconciled and the investments/profits etc. accrued to the claimant were paid to him and he executed a deed of retirement dated 16th October 2004.

4. There is no dispute that through legal notice dated 4th January 2005 the claimant proposed the name of the Sole Arbitrator to which the respondent raised an objection to the effect that an Arbitrator can be appointed only by taking recourse to section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996. However, the Arbitral Tribunal constituting Mr. Pawan Kumar Bauri continued with the arbitral proceeding, and rendered the Award.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitr