1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 187 OF 2009 Newton Engineering & Chemicals Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms. Shilpa Kapil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.A. Bhalwal i/by M/s. Vyas & Bhalwal, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 11TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. The petitioner has invoked Section 12 (3) and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”), basically, on a foundation that the Arbitrator has decided an application filed on 23rd November 2007 Section 16 of the Act on 24th September 2009 but not considered the allegations of bias against him made in a letter dated 15th September 2008 by closing the argument under Section 16 application on 5th September 2008. 2. Admittedly, the application under Section 16 of the Act was filed SKT/- 2 prior to this letter dated 15th September 2008. This letter was filed after closing of argument under Section 16 application. Therefore, at this stage, without observing anything on the merit of the averments/contentions as raised in the letter dated 15th September 2008 and in view of the provisions of Section 16 (6) of the Act and read with settled law that in the proceedings pending before the Arbitral Tribunal duly constituted under the Act, the interference of the Court would be less and/or except so provided under this Act, I am declined to pass an order as prayed at this stage. The petitioner has remedy to raise all such available grounds at appropriate stage. 3. The arbitral Tribunal is bound to consider such grounds by giving hearing to both the parties before passing any final order in the matter, as early as, possible. If case is made out, the Tribunal may consider to frame a issue also. 4. Considering the purpose and object of Section 12 read with Section 15 of the Act and the decision under Section 16 of the Act, and as the representation/allegations are made after closing of argument under Section 16 application raising doubts about the arbitrator’s independence, impartiality and bias, I am of the view that there is no case made out, to terminate, mandate or substitute to the SKT/- 3 arbitration as alleged. Therefore, there is no question of appointment of new Arbitrator as prayed for in this petition. Resultantly, with above observations petition is dismissed by keeping all points open. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) SKT/-