http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SH.BHUPINDER SINGH BINDRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2464            1995 SCC  (5) 329  JT 1995 (6)   612        1995 SCALE  (4)821

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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 25-a of the contract. Clause 25-a reads thus:      "Clause 25-A:- if question difference of      objections whatsoever shall arise in any      way connected  with or  arising  out  of      this  instruments   or  the  meaning  or      operation  of   any  part  thereof,  the      rights, duties  or liabilities  of other      party,  then  save  in  so  far  as  the      decision of  any such  matter is  herein      before provided  and has been so decided      every such  matter including  whether it      has been finally decided accordingly, or      whether   the    contract   should    be      terminated   or    has   been    rightly      terminated and  regards the  rights  and      obligations 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 contractor......".      It is  settled law  that  court  cannot  interpose  and interdict the appointment of an arbitrator, whom the parties have chosen  under the  terms of  the contract  unless legal misconduct of  the arbitrator,  fraud, disqualification etc. is pleaded  and proved.  It is not in the power of the party

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

at his  own 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 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, Clause 25A expressly  provides appointment  of the named officer by designation who  was appointed  in  terms  thereof  and  had entered  upon   the  duties   immediately.   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. The contract clearly indicates that   the   Superintending   Engineer,   Planning   Circle, Chandigarh or  any  one  acting  as  such  at  the  time  of reference within  180 days, i.e. six months from the date of making final  payment of  the contractor  is the  designated officer chosen  voluntarily by  the parties. It was impugned in the  o.p. filed in the court of the Senior judge that the officer had  delayed for  considerable period  in making the award and  that, therefore, it necessitated the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court under the Act.      The High  Court of  Punjab and  Haryana in the impugned order in  Civil Rev.  No.516/91 has  pointed  out  that  the contractor had consented for adjournments and that there was no  allegation   of  misconduct   of   the   arbitrator   in adjudicating the  dispute. On  the other hand the High Court recorded that:      ".....the Arbitrator was proceeding with      the task  of  an  arbitration  in  right      earnest, inspite  of the  fact that  the      Contractor was  not cooperating  in this      behalf. On  the transfer  of  Shri  R.K.      Aggarwal, Superintending  Engineer,  the      work of arbitration had been taken up by      his successor  Shri  Puran  Jeet  Singh,      Superintending Engineer."      Thus it  was held  that the  Arbitrator was  willing to proceed with  and that  the appellant was not cooperating in conducting the  proceedings. Therefore  having consented for adjournments and  dragged on  the case  for  a  considerable time, it  is no  longer open  to contend that the arbitrator neglected to  make the  award. Under those circumstances, it cannot be  said that there are any laches on the part of the arbitrator in  giving the award. When the parties, under the clauses of  the contract,  have specifically  chosen a named authority and  not any other arbitrator, without the consent of the  parties, court has no jurisdiction to interpose into the contract  and appoint  an arbitrator  under s.8  or  any other provision  under the  Act. The  High Court, therefore, was clearly  right in  setting aside the order of the Senior Judge appointing an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.      Since the  matters are  pending for  a long  time,  the arbitrator is  directed to  adjudicate upon  the dispute and give his  award within  six months  from  the  date  of  the receipt of  this order.  It is  needless to  mention that in case the appellant does not cooperate in the disposal of the application, the time limit prescribed by us would not deter the arbitrator  to decide  the dispute according to law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3