An arbitrator can be appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if there is no current relation with the disputing parties, including former employees.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2025)

These two petitions are filed by the petitioner by challenging the orders passed by the Sub Judge, Kottarakkara in EA Nos.60/2024 and 66/2024 in EP No.44/2010 and EA Nos.59/2024 and 65/2024 in EP No.43/2010 which allowed the EAs and rejected the request of the petitioner for appointing any third party Arbitrator other than Satheesan K., Superintending Engineer (Retd), who was suggested by the respondents State.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed an execution petition in respect of OS (Arb) No. 107/1987, where the court appointed the arbitrator and suggested the names of the arbitrator by the respondents.

Accordingly the respondent suggested names of three persons namely (1) K. Satheesan, a retired Superintending Engineer, Kollam. (2) Latha P. (Latha kumari) and (3) Joy Ashok. Previously, the court appointed the second candidate Latha P. (Latha Kumari) who is a Superintending Engineer (Retd) as an Arbitrator. The same was challenged by the State on the ground that there was a litigation between the said Latha Kumari and the State. Therefore, as per 7^th Schedule and Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) she cannot be appointed as arbitrator. Upon considering the same, the court accepted the contention and appointed one Satheesan, who is a Superintending Engineer (Retd.) as arbitrator vide order dated 02.11.2024. The same is challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that as per (5) of the Act and 7^th Schedule, the very arbitrator appointed by the Court is a former employee of the very respondents state and in the same department. Therefore, the arbitrator cannot be appointed. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same and appointing any of the 3 advocate arbitrators to arbitrate in the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the High Court is having empanelled arbitral advocates, any one of them can be appointed as arbitrator. The arbitrator appointed by the court is Satheesan, who was a previous employee in the respondent State and was recommended by the respondents State, still in the pay panel and receiving the pension. Therefore, if the arbitration is conducted by him, there would be a bias in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same and modifying the order.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader seriously objected the same, contending that the very agreement between the parties clearly suggests that when any dispute arises between the parties as per Clause No. 52 of the LCB specification, any dispute of arbitration, the Chief Engineer Project No. 2 shall send to the contractor a list of three officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer or higher who have not been connected with the work under this contract. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader that as per the agreement clause 52, this chief Engineer shall suggest names of three persons and accordingly it was suggested and one among them has been rightly appointed by the court. Therefore, there is no illegality or error in passing the order, in order to challenge the same. He also contended that the appointment of the retired Superintending Engineer has not been challenged by the very petitioner when Latha Kumari was first appointed as an arbitrator, who is also a retired Superintending Engineer of the respondents state. Therefore, that contention cannot be considered once again cha