- (1.) THE Court : This is an application for extention of time to file the award under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. This application has been seriously opposed by the respondent on the ground that the Arbitrators have allowed the time to expire. Moreover it has been alleged that the Joint Arbitrators and in particular HSCL's nominee Arbitrator, Brigadier V.K. Sawhney are totally biased in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. THE respondent has made the following allegations :- (a) At every stage the arbitrators heckled Sri J. P. Singh, Law Officer of HSCL who conducted HSCL's case, by asking him irrelevant questions and making caustic remarks against HSCL. (b) THE remarks of the Arbitrators showed that they have prejudged the issues involved and accepted the claims of Cherra to be legitimate, when hearing of the reference was far from concluded. (c) During cross-examination of HSCL's witnesses, the Arbitrators took up the cudgels for Cherra and constantly put forward unnecessary and probing questions with a view to demolishing HSCL's case.
(2.) IT has been alleged on behalf of the respondent in the 38th meeting held on December 9, 1993 the Senior Counsel and Junior Counsel appeared for HSCL and started making submissions. In fact the Counsel argued for the entire duration of the meeting on the point of maintainability of the claim of interest. The Counsel had not completed their submission on interest when the proceedings were adjourned till January 27, 1994. It has further been alleged that on January 23, 1994 a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated December 9, 1993 was made available for the first time to HSCL, from a perusal whereof it appears that the Arbitrators had deliberately prepared a wholly misleading minutes of the said meeting. Following allegations have also been made - (a) Although HSCL's Counsel argued at length for the full duration of the meeting, the same was not recorded. Instead an incorrect impression was given that HSCL's Senior Counsel asked for some time without making further argument and the Arbitrators adjourned the hearing till 27th January, 1994, 28th January, 1994 and 29th January, 1994. (b) The Arbitrators did not even record the fact that a Junior Counsel had also appeared on behalf of HSCL with the Senior Counsel and of course did not record his name. (c) There was not even a whisper in the minutes of 9th December, 1993 that time was to expire on 31st December, 1993 and consent had been given by the parties for extension. As per the said minutes HSCL's Senior Counsel had prayed for some time and the Arbitrators adjourned the sitting till 27th January, 1994.
(3.) BY its letter dated January, 25, 1994 the respondent requested the Learned Umpire to enter on reference in terms of paragraph 4, Schedule I of the Arbitration Act. Copies of the said letter were sent to the petitioner, his Advocate as well as to the Learned Arbitrators.;