LexSH. BHUPINDER SINGH BINDRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SH. BHUPINDER SINGH BINDRA A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. JULY 28, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B Arbitration Act, 1940:Sections 5, 8, 11 and 29: Arbitrator-Appointment of a designated Officer chosen by par- tie~Power of Court to revoke-Held Cowt can interpose and interdict the C appointment 011/y for a sufficie11t cause-Arbitrator-Entering duties immedi- atery-:No allegation of misconduct-Co11tractor consenting to adjoumments and dragging the case-Revoki11g the appoi11tme11t of such an arbitrator and appointment of independent arbitrator Held illegal. In a contract between the appellant and the respondents one of the D clause expressly provided for the appointment of a designated officer as an arbitrator. Dispute having arisen between the parties the named officer was appointed as arbitrator and he entered upon his duties immediately. However, the appellant impugned the arbitrator's appointment on the ground that he had considerably delayed the making of the award. The E senior judge appointed an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the dis- pute. The High Court set aside the order of the senior judge by holding that there was no allegation of misconduct against the arbitrator and that the appellant himself had consented for adjournments and dragged on the case for a considerable time and therefore it cannot be said that there were any laches on the part of the arbitrator in giving the award. Hence this F appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. When the parties, under the clauses of the contract, have specifically chosen a named authority and not any other arbitrator, G without the consent of the parties, court has no jurisdiction to interpose into the contract and appoint an arbitrator under section 8 or any other provision under the Act. It is not in the power of the party at his OWJl will or pleasure to revoke the authority of the arbitrator appointed with his consent. There must be just and sufficient cause for revocation. There is H 417 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A no general power for the Court to appoint an arbitrator unless the case falls within the relevant provisions of the Act nor will the court make an appointment where the arbitration agreement provides a method by which appointment is to be made. [ 420-C, 419-C] B 2. Revocation of arbitrator's authority is exactly equivalent to removal which would be done on specified grounds like misconduct or omission to enter upon duties within time etc. Both parties by consent may revoke the authority of the arbitrator but that is not the case herein. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there are any )aches on the part of the arbitrator in giving the award. The High Court was, therefore, C clearly right in setting aside the order of the senior Judge appointing an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. (419-D-E; 420-C-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7370 of 1995. D From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1991 of the Punjab and E F G H Haryana High Court in C.R.No. 516 of 1991. Ms. Madhu Tewatia and Ranbir Yadav for the Appellants. Ms. Kamini J aiswal for the Respondent. . The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We. have heard both the counsel. The only question in this case is whether the Civil Court, while exercising the power. under ss.5, 8, 11 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') would be justified in revoking the appointment of an arbitrator appointed in terms of clause 25A of the contract. Clause 25~Areads thus : · "Clause 25-A : -If question, difference or objections whatsoever shall ar.ise in any way conneeted With or arising out of this . instruments or the meaning or operation of any·part therefor, the . rights, duties or liabilities of other patty, then save in so far as the decision of any such ~atter is hereinbefore:providei:l and has been s~ decided eveiy ~uch matter including whether it has been finally decided accordingly, o; whether the contract should be terminated B.S. BINDRA v. U.0.1. 419 or has been rightly terminated and regards the rights and obliga- A tions of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, Chandigarh, or acting as such at the time of reference within 180 days viz., six months from the date of making final payment to the contr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.