IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb.Case No.11 of 2007. Decided on: May 28, 2008 Sham Mahajan …Petitioner. VERSUS The N.H.P.C. Ltd. & Anr. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Objector: Mr.J.S.Bhogal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent: None. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This petition under Section 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) has been filed for terminating the mandate of arbitral Tribunal comprising of Shri B.S.P. Sinha respondent No.3. 2. It has been alleged that the petitioner had entered into a contract with respondents No.1 and 2 for execution of work relating to ‘Investigation, Design and Construction of RCC Bridge over Ursu Nallah on Garsa-Sheelagarh Road including hill slope protection, if any, aesthetics and land scaping etc. (Package 60)’. The petitioner completed the work awarded to him but disputes had arisen between the parties relating to the said work and, therefore, the petitioner 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… invoked arbitration agreement between the parties vide letter dated 16.12.2003. On the request of the petitioner, Justice N.C.Kochhar (Retd.) was nominated as Arbitrator. The petitioner appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal comprising Justice N.C.Kochhar (Retd.) and submitted his claims. However, unfortunately Justice N.C.Kochhar died. Thereupon, respondent No.3 Shri Bakshi S.P.Sinha was appointed Arbitrator vide letter dated 29.10.2005. On 12.1.2006 petitioner appeared before respondent No.3 who did not disclose any ground as required under Section 12 of the Act, hence, petitioner gave his no objection to the appointment of respondent No.3 as Arbitrator. Respondent No.3 took up the matter for hearing on different dates. The petitioner after 10.12.2006 came to know that respondent No.3 earlier served respondents No.1 and 2 as an employee, which fact respondent No.3 never disclosed in writing to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act. The fact that respondent No.3 earlier was an employee of respondents No.1 and 2 created justifiable doubts in the mind of the petitioner that respondent No.3 would not give fair treatment to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act before respondent No.3 on 27.12.2006 pointing out that the continuing of the arbitration proceedings by him would be an exercise of futility. On 22.3.2007 respondent No.3 has dismissed the said application of the petitioner and respondent No.3 is continuing with the arbitration proceedings. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 15 of the Act for terminating the mandate of respondent No.3 as …3… Arbitrator. He has submitted that the petitioner is under a bonafide and genuine apprehension that reasonable grounds exist giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of respondent No.3 as he would not get justice from respondent No.3. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 have contested the petition. They have submitted that Arbitrator on the first date of hearing informed that he was former employee of the Corporation but the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the continuance of respondent No.3 as Arbitrator. The objection of maintainability of the petitioner has also been taken. The Arbitrator has already rejected the objection of the petitioner and the ultimate award can be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The petition is not bonafide. The petitioner is interested in delaying the proceedings. The respondents No.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner filed rejoinder in which he reiterated his case. 4. I have heard Shri J.S.Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner who has reiterated the points raised in the petition. The petitioner had also filed Arbitration case No.12 of 2007 in this Court wherein similar objections were taken against the appointment of respondent No.3 as an Arbitrator. The Arbitration case No.12 of 2007 has been decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 23.4.2008 and has held that the conjoint reading of Sections 12, 13 and 34 of the Act leads to no other conclusion save and except that the point raised by the petitioner can be taken in a petition under Section 34 of the Act and the learned …4… Single Judge dismissed the petition of the petitioner in Arbitration case No.12 of 2007. Applying the ratio of the decision dated 23..4.2008 in Arbitration case No.12 of 2007, I am also of the opinion that there is no force in the submissions made by Mr.J.S.Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, in the present case, hence, the petition is dismissed. OMP No.367 of 2007: In view of the disposal of Arbitration Case No.11 of 2007, the present application has rendered infructuous. May 28, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (soni) Judge.