1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1159 of 2010 Concept Marketing, Hyderabad & Anr ... Petitioners versus Tele Brands(India) Pvt.Ltd& Anr ... Respondents ... Ms.Komal Joshi i/b M/s.Khaitan & Jaykar for the petitioners CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 11th June 2010 P.C. 1. By this application, petitioner challenges the order dated 24th August 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner filed u/s.16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”). 2. Section 37 of the Arbitration Act provides for an appeal to the Court against an order accepting the plea u/s.16(2) of the Act. No appeal has been provided against the order rejecting the plea. The intention of the legislature is to expedite the arbitration proceedings with minimum interference of the Court and no judicial interference should therefore be made except as provided u/s.37 of the Arbitration Act. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to interfere in 2 the arbitration proceedings except in case of a clear illegality or grave injustice. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that arbitrator being the Managing Director of the respondent company is incompetent to be an arbitrator in a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The arbitrator has been named in the arbitration agreement. The petitioner was aware that the learned arbitrator was the Managing Director of the respondent company when he entered into the arbitration agreement and yet reposing confidence in him and agreed for arbitration at his hands. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason for the learned Arbitrator to recuse himself and/or to uphold the challenge of the petitioner. Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)