Case: TRF Ltd Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd

their authority to nominate cannot be questioned. What really in that circumstance can be called in question is the procedural compliance and the eligibility of their arbitrator depending upon the norms provided under the Act and the Schedules appended thereto. But, here is a case where the Managing Director is the "named sole arbitrator" and he has also been conferred with the power to nominate one who can be the arbitrator in his place. Thus, there is subtle distinction. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to a two-Judge Bench decision in State of Orissa and others v. Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement, Cuttack and others, (1998) 7 SCC 162. In the said case, the question arose can the Board of Revenue revise the order passed by its delegate. Dwelling upon the said proposition, the Court held: "25. We have to note that the Commissioner when he exercises power of the Board delegated to him under Section 33 of the Settlement Act, 1958, the order passed by him is to be treated as an order of the Board of Revenue and not as that of the Commissioner in his capacity as Commissioner. This position is clear from two rulings of this Court to which we shall presently refer. The first of the said rulings is the one decided by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Roop Chand v. State of Punjab. In that case, it was held by the majority that where the State Government had, under Section 41(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, delegated its appellate powers vested in it under Section 21(4) to an "officer", an order passed by such an officer was an order passed by the State Government itself and "not an order passed by any officer under this Act" within Section 42 and was not revisable by the State Government. It was pointed out that for the purpose of exercise of powers of revision by the State under Section 42 of that Act, the order sought to be revised must be an order passed by an officer in his own right and not as a delegate of the State. The State Government was, therefore, not entitled under Section 42 to call for the records of the case which was disposed of by an officer acting as its delegate." 54. Be it noted in the said case, reference was made to Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P., 1997(4) R.C.R (Civil) 95 : (1997) 7 SCC 37 , which followed the decision in Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503 . It is seemly to note here that said principle has been followed in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra). 55. Mr. Sundaram, has strongly relied on Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji (supra). In the said case, the three-Judge Bench applied the maxim "Qui facit per alium facit per se". We may profitably reproduce the passage: "9. ... The principle which would apply, if the objects are struck by Section 23 of the Contract Act, is embodied in the maxim: "Qui facit per alium facit per se" (What one does through another is done by oneself). To put it in another form, that which cannot be done directly may not be done indirectly by engaging another outside the prohibited area to do the illegal act within the prohibited area. It is immaterial whether, for the doing of such an illegal act, the agent employed is given the wider powers or authority of the "pucca adatia", or, as the High Court had held, he is clothed with the powers of an ordinary commission agent only." 56. The aforesaid authorities have been commended to us to establish the proposition that if the nomination of an arbitrator by an ineligible arbitrator is allowed, it would tantamount to carrying on the proceeding of arbitration by himself. According to learned counsel for the appellant, ineligibility strikes at the root of his power to arbitrate or get it arbitrated upon by a nominee. 57. In such a context, the fulcrum of the controversy would be, can an ineligible arbitrator, like the Managing Director, nominate an arbitrator, who may be otherwise eligible and a respectable person. As stated earlier, we are neither concerned with the objectivity nor the individual respectability. We are only concerned with the authority or the power of the Managing Director. By our analysis, we are obligated to arrive at the conclusion that once the arbitrator has become ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as an arbitrator. The arbitrator becomes ineligible as per prescription contained in Section 12(5) of the Act. It is inconceivable in law that person who is statutorily ineligible can nominate a person. Needless to say, once the infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse. One cannot have a building without the plinth. Or to put it differently, once the identity of the Managing Director as the sole arbitrator is lost, the power to nominate someone else as an arbitrator is obliterated. Therefore, the view expressed by the High Court is not sustainable and we say so.58. Another facet needs to be addressed. The Designated Judge in a cryptic manner has ruled after noting that the petitioner therein had no reservation for nomination of the nominated arbitrator and further taking note of the fact that there has been a disclosure, that he has exercised the power under Section 11(6) of the Act. We are impelled to think that that is not the right procedure to be adopted and, therefore, we are unable to agree with the High Court on that score also and, accordingly, we set aside the order appointing the arbitrator. However, as Clause (c) is independent of Clause (d), the arbitration clause survives and hence, the Court can appoint an arbitrator taking into consideration all the aspects. Therefore, we remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the prayer relating to appointment of an arbitrator.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. We have reproduced the entire Clause 33 to appreciate the dispute resolution mechanism in its proper perspective.(c) of Clause 33 clearly postulates that if the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, it has to be determined under the Act, as amended. Therefore, the amended provisions doa careful scrutiny of the proviso, it is discernible that there are fundamentally three components, namely, the parties can waive the applicability of thethe said waiver can only take place subsequent to dispute having arisen between the parties; and such waiver must be by an express agreement in writing.24. The aforesaid decision clearly lays down that it is not open to either of the parties to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator for resolution of the disputes in a situation that had arisen in the said case.The purpose of referring to the aforesaid judgments is that courts in certain circumstances have exercised the jurisdiction to nullify the appointments made by the authorities as there has been failure of procedure or ex facie contravention of the inherent facet of the arbitration clause.The said pronouncement, as we find, is factually distinguishable and it cannot be said in absolute terms that the proceeding once initiated could not be interfered with the proceeding under Section 11 of the Act. As we find, the said case pertained to ICC Rules and, in any case, we are disposed to observe that the said case rests upon its ownit clearly stated that the said decision is only concerned with the "concept of court" in the context of Sections 42, 34, 9 and 2(1)(e) of the Act. In the present case, we are exclusively concerned with the statutory disqualification of the learned arbitrator. The principles laid down in Associated Contractors (supra) has no applicability to the case at hand and reliance placed upon the same, we are obliged to say, is nothing but a sisyphean endeavour.We have discussed in detail to understand the context in which judgment in Associated Contractors (supra) was delivered. Suffice it to mention that in Walter Bau AG (supra), the designated Judge only reiterated the principles which have been stated by age Bench decisions that had dealt with Section 11 of the Act. We may also hasten to make it clear that the authority in Associated Contractors (supra) deals with a different situation and it has nothing to do with the conundrum that has arisen in the instant case. We have devoted some space as the said authority was pressed into service with enormous conviction. Beit clearly stated that the said decision is only concerned with the "concept of court" in the context of Sections 42, 34, 9 and 2(1)(e) of the Act. In the present case, we are exclusively concerned with the statutory disqualification of the learned arbitrator. The principles laid down in Associated Contractors (supra) has no applicability to the case at hand and reliance placed upon the same, we are obliged to say, is nothing but a sisyphean endeavour.It is worthy to note here that in the said case, the Court set aside the impugned order as the designated Judge had entered into the billing disputes, which he could not have. The purpose of referring to these two judgments is that apart from the fact that the Designated Judge can, at the initial stage, adjudicate upon his jurisdiction, he is also entitled to scrutinize the existence of the condition precedent for the exercise of his power and also the disqualification of the arbitrator orthe impugned order would indicate, the learned Judge has opined that there had been no failure of procedure, for there was a request for appointment of an arbitrator and an arbitrator has been appointed. It is apt to state here that the present factual score projects a different picture altogether and we have to carefully analyse thethink it appropriate to make it clear that in the case at hand we are neither concerned with the disclosure nor objectivity nor impartiality nor any such other circumstance.In such a context, the fulcrum of the controversy would be, can an ineligible arbitrator, like the Managing Director, nominate an arbitrator, who may be otherwise eligible and a respectable person. As stated earlier, we are neither concerned with the objectivity nor the individual respectability. We are only concerned with the authority or the power of the Managing Director. By our analysis, we are obligated to arrive at the conclusion that once the arbitrator has become ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as an arbitrator. The arbitrator becomes ineligible as per prescription contained in Section 12(5) of the Act. It is inconceivable in law that person who is statutorily ineligible can nominate a person. Needless to say, once the infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse. One cannot have a building without the plinth. Or to put it differently, once the identity of the Managing Director as the sole arbitrator is lost, the power to nominate someone else as an arbitrator is obliterated. Therefore, the view expressed by the High Court is not sustainable and we say so.58. Another facet needs to be addressed. The Designated Judge in a cryptic manner has ruled after noting that the petitioner therein had no reservation for nomination of the nominated arbitrator and further taking note of the fact that there has been a disclosure, that he has exercised the power under Section 11(6) of the Act. We are impelled to think that that is not the right procedure to be adopted and, therefore, we are unable to agree with the High Court on that score also and, accordingly, we set aside the order appointing the arbitrator. However, as Clause (c) is independent of Clause (d), the arbitration clause survives and hence, the Court can appoint an arbitrator taking into consideration all the aspects. Therefore, we remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the prayer relating to appointment of an arbitrator.