Bachawat, J. - (1.) THIS is an application tor removal of the Arbitrator.
(2.) UNDER the contract the arbitration was to be by two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party. In this case the petitioner did not appoint its Arbitrator because it was then under the impression that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter in dispute. The result was the arbitrator appointed by the respondent became entitled to act as sole arbitrator. An application was made previously for determination of the scope and effect of the arbitration agreement but counsel for the petitioner did not then press for setting aside the appointment of this arbitrator. The arbitrator in this case is Ramnath Bajoria who is the father of the Managing Director of the respondent company. Having regard to this relationship Ramnath from the beginning had a peculiarly delicate task to discharge as an arbitrator. Every arbitrator is expected to conform to the fundamental rules relating to the administration of justice. Having regard to his special relationship the arbitrator was bound to be very particular and strict in maintaining his judicial and impartial attitude towards both parties.
(3.) NOW, what are the facts in this case? When the examination of witnesses started the petitioner requested the arbitrator to employ a short-hand writer stating that he was prepared to pay the entire costs of such employment if the arbitrator so directed. The arbi-trator ruled at that time that he would not employ any short-hand writer even if the petitioner was prepared to pay the costs. The arbitrator has a discretion and this ruling by itself does not justify his removal. But as yet I see no reason why the arbitrator refused to employ a stenographer. He had of course no power to compel a party who was not agreeable to pay the expenses but he certainly had the power to employ a shorthand writer if one of the parties was prepared to pay the expenses.;