- (1.) - Leave granted. We have heard both the counsel. The only question in this case is whether the Civil Court, while exercising the power under Ss. 5, 8, 11 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') would be justified in revoking the appointment of an arbitrator appointed in terms of clause 25-A of the contract. Clause 25-A reads thus : "Clause 25-A:- If question, difference or objections whatsoever shall arise in any way connected with or arising out of this instruments or the meaning or operation of any part therefor, the rights, duties or liabilities of other partly, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter is hereinbefore provided and has been so decided every such matter including whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and regards the rights and obligations of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, Chandigarh, or acting as such at the time of reference within 180 days viz., six months from the date of making final payment to the contractor.........".
(2.) It is settled law that Court cannot interpose and interdict the appointment of an arbitrator, whom the parties have chosen under the terms of the contract unless legal misconduct of the arbitrator, fraud, disqualification etc. is pleaded and proved. It is not in the power of the party at his own will or pleasure to revoke the authority of the arbitrator appointed with his consent. There must be just and sufficient cause for revocation. There is no general power for that Court to appoint an arbitrator unless the case falls within the relevant provisions of the Act not will the Court make an appointment where the arbitration agreement provides a method by which appointment is to be made, Clause 25A expressly provides appointment of the named officer by designation who was appointed in terms of and had entered upon the duties immediately. Revocation of arbitrator's authority is exactly equivalent to removal which would be done on specified grounds like misconduct or omission to enter upon duties within time etc. Both parties by consent may revoke the authority of the arbitrator but that is not the case herein. The contract clearly indicates that the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, Chandigarh or any one acting as such at the time of reference within 180 days,i.e. six months from the date of making final payment of the contractor is the designated officer chosen voluntarily by the parties. It was impugned in the O.P. filed in the Court of the Senior Judge that the officer had delayed for considerable period in making the award and that, therefore, it necessitated the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act.
(3.) The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the impugned order in Civil Rev. No. 516/91 has pointed out that the contractor had consented for adjournment and that there was no allegation of misconduct of the arbitrator in adjudicating the dispute. On the other hand, the High Court recorded that : "......... the Arbitrator was proceeding with the task of an arbitration in right earnest, in spite of the fact that the contractor was not cooperating in this behalf. On the transfer of Shri R.K. Aggarwal, Superintending Engineer, the work of arbitration had been taken up by his successor Shri Puran Jeet Singh. Superintending Engineer." ;