Santosh Kumar Rout v. Hyderabad Trade Expo Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

1. This is the second round of htigation. Earlier the Petitioner had filed Arb. P. No. 421 of 2009 under Section 11 (b) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') seeking the appointment of an independent Arbitrator.

2. By an order dated 15^*^ December 2011 passed in the said petition, the Court required the named Arbitrator, Mr. J.P. Dhamija, FCA to enter reference within a period of 15 days and adjudicate the claims and counter claim.

3. Thereafter it appears that the claims and counter-claims were filed before OMPNo. 1024of2013 Page 1of[3] 2015:DHC:11687 the learned Arbitrator. By a letter dated 6^*^ July 2012, the learned Arbitrator wrote to the parties fixing the date of arbitration as 28^*" July 2012. The matter then once again taken up on 20'^ November 2012 granting the Respondent eight weeks to file a reply. On 4^*^ January 2013, the Arbitrator granted further time to the Respondent to file a reply subject to the costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Petitioner/Claimant. At the next sitting on 11^^ February 2013, the Arbitrator required the parties to pay his fees as per the scheduled ofDelhi High Court Arbitration Centre ('DAC') Rules.

4. On the next date, i.e., 13^^ March 2013, the learned Arbitrator noted that the Petitioner/ Claimant has "refused to pay the Arbitrator Fees despite the categorical order dated February 11, 2013". Thereafter again on 15'^ April 2013, the Arbitrator held his sitting but none appeared for the Petitioner/Claimant. It appeared that the Petitioner/ Claimant filed an application under Section 12 of the Act challenging the independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator. Since none appeared, the application was dismissed. Further, as neither of the parties paid his fees, the arbitration proceedings were adjourned sine die.

5. It is only thereafter that the present petition has been filed by the OMP No. 1024 of2013 Page 2 of[3] Petitioner under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act seeking termination of the mandate ofthe Arbitrator.

6. After the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. FIIT JEE Limited 2011 (5) RAJ 7 (Del) to the effect that once a party avails the remedy under Section 12 of the Act unsuccessfully, the said party will have to await the passing of the Award and to raise any such ground regarding the impartiality of the Arbitrator when a petition is filed under Section 34 ofthe Act.

7. Moreover, in the present case, having gone through the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator, this Court is not persuadedto exercise its power under Section 14 of the Act.

8. The petition is dismissed.

9. In view of the above, no orders are required to be passed in LA. No. 788 of 2015 and it is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J