Case: International Airport Authority Of India Vs. K.D. Bali &amp; Another

do so. In the instant case the petitioner itself agitated issue of jurisdiction before the arbitrator and by its conduct submitted the question of jurisdiction and other questions of law for determination of the arbitrator. Once having done so, it was not proper for the petitioner to ask the arbitrator to state a special case. This, in our opinion, is no ground for bias. 10. The fourth ground was that the first reference, where the claim involved was Rs. 85 lakhs, was heard for a considerable time, while the arguments in respect of second and third references, which covered the claim of Rs. 1.17 crores and Rs. 5.81 crores were concluded by respondent 2 within one and one fourth of a day. The length of the time taken is no indication either of speeding up or of any abuse of the proceedings. We agree with the learned Judge that there is no rule which requires that the length of argument should depend upon the magnitude of the claim made. 11. The other point sought to be urged by the petitioner was that the venue of the arbitration was changed from conference room at Santa Cruz Airport, Bombay, to the conference room at Indian Merchants Chambers at Churchgate, Bombay. It is the claim of the petitioner that this change of venue was without the consent of the petitioner. It appears from the affidavit filed before the High Court that the venue was changed because of disturbance at the conference room at Santa Cruz and this fact was known to the petitioner all along. Change of venue in no manner would indicate that the arbitrator was prejudiced against the petitioner and no prayer was made to the arbitrator not to change the venue. This is solely a fallacious ground to make out a case of alleged bias. The other ground was that the petitioner and respondent 2 used to share the costs of the air ticket of the arbitrator from Delhi to Bombay and back. It was submitted that since June 9, 1987 the petitioner has not paid for the ticket and also not provided for residential accommodation at Santa Cruz Airport. It was further submitted that respondent 2 must be providing the air ticket and also hotel accommodation to the arbitrator and the receipt of these facilities was enough, according to the petitioner, to establish that the arbitration was likely to be biased. It is said that the petitioner made these allegations because the petitioner declined to contribute for the costs of the air ticket and providing for the accommodation. The petitioner obstructed at all stages of the proceedings of arbitration, what the arbitrator did he did openly to the knowledge of the respondents. As the learned Judge has rightly pointed out the petitioner after June 9, 1987 seems to have decided that the arbitrator should not proceed to hear the reference and in order to frustrate the arbitration proceedings started raising all sorts of frivolous and unsustainable contentions. Having failed and realised that respondent 1 was not willing to submit to the dictates of the petitioner, the petitioner declined to contribute for the air ticket and providing for accommodation. No party should be allowed to throw out the arbitration proceeding by such tactics and if the arbitrator has not surrendered to pressure, in our opinion, the arbitrator cannot be faulted on that score nor the proceedings of the arbitrator be allowed to be defeated by such method. 12. There was another ground sought to be made before us that there was a loss of confidence. We find no reasonable ground for such loss of confidence. Every fancy of a party cannot be a ground for removal of the arbitrator. It was alleged that there were counter-claims made by the respondents. These counter-claims have not yet been dealt with by the arbitrator. Our attention was drawn to page 288 of volume 2 of the paper book where a counter-claim had been referred to. It appears that the petitioner has separately treated these counter-claims. These counter-claims have not yet been considered by the arbitrator. That is no ground for any apprehension of bias. An affidavit was filed before us that on March 6, 1988 a letter was served indicating the dates for hearing as March 7 to 10, 1988. It appears that the matter was adjourned thereafter but by merely making an application for adjournment and refusing to attend the arbitration proceeding, a party cannot forestall arbitration proceeding. 13. We are in agreement with the learned Judge of the High Court expressing unhappiness as to the manner in which attempts had been made to delay the proceeding. There is a great deal of legitimate protest at the delay in judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding. As a matter of fact delay in litigation in courts has reached such proportion that people are losing faith in the adjudicatory process. Having given our anxious consideration to the grounds alleged in this application, we find no ground to conclude that there could be any ground for reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner for revocation of the authority of the arbitrator appointed by the petitioner itself. While indorsing and fully maintaining the integrity of the principle justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done, it is important to remember that the principle should not be led to the erroneous impression that justice should appear to be done than it should in fact be done. See the observations of Slade, J. in R. v. Camborne Justice ex parte Pearce [(1954) 2 All ER 850, 855]. We are satisfied from the facts mentioned hereinbefore that there is no reasonable ground of any suspicion in the mind of the reasonable man of bias of the arbitrator. Instances of cases where bias can be found are given in Commercial Arbitration by Mustill and Boyd, 1982 Edn. The conduct of the present arbitrator does not fall within the examples given and the principles enunciated therein.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. We are in agreement with the learned Judge of the High Court expressing unhappiness as to the manner in which attempts had been made to delay the proceeding. There is a great deal of legitimate protest at the delay in judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding. As a matter of fact delay in litigation in courts has reached such proportion that people are losing faith in the adjudicatory process. Having given our anxious consideration to the grounds alleged in this application, we find no ground to conclude that there could be any ground for reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner for revocation of the authority of the arbitrator appointed by the petitioner itself. While indorsing and fully maintaining the integrity of the principle justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done, it is important to remember that the principle should not be led to the erroneous impression that justice should appear to be done than it should in fact be done. See the observations of Slade, J. in R. v. Camborne Justice ex parte Pearce [(1954) 2 All ER 850, 855]. We are satisfied from the facts mentioned hereinbefore that there is no reasonable ground of any suspicion in the mind of the reasonable man of bias of the arbitrator. Instances of cases where bias can be found are given in Commercial Arbitration by Mustill and Boyd, 1982 Edn. The conduct of the present arbitrator does not fall within the examples given and the principles enunciated therein