I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation and application of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with its Seventh Schedule. Section 12 (5) is set out below: "12(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator: Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement in writing."
(2.) The Seventh Schedule to the Act specifies certain relationships. If a person who is intended to be appointed as an arbitrator falls in that relationship with a party he is ineligible to be appointed. The exact scope and implication of this provision has been recently explained in detail by the Supreme Court in the case of Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. decided by it on 10th February, 2017. Delivering the judgement of the Court Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri noted that by their letter dated 8th July, 2016 the respondent, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited forwarded to the petitioner a list of five serving and retired officers belonging to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Central Public Works Department (CPWD), to choose their nominee arbitrator from it. Thereafter, the respondent forwarded a list of about thirty one names which included retired officers of the Indian Railways with technical qualification and experience. The court noted that before amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Law Commission considered the requirement of neutrality of arbitrators. Arbitrators were required to the independent as well as impartial. The court observed. "21. Independence and impartiality are two different concepts. An arbitrator may be independent and yet, lack impartiality, or vice versa. Impartiality, as is well accepted, is a more subjective concept as compared to independence. Independence, which is more an objective concept, may, thus, be more straightforwardly ascertained by the parties at the outset of the arbitration proceedings in light of the circumstances disclosed by the arbitrator, while partiality will more likely surface during the arbitration proceedings. 24. In the context of this case, it is relevant to mention that only if an arbitrator is an employee, a consultant, an advisor or has any past or present business relationship with a party, he is rendered ineligible to act as an arbitrator. Likewise, that person is treated as incompetent to perform the role of arbitrator, who is a manager, director or part of the management or has a single controlling influence in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration. Likewise, persons who regularly advised the appointing party or affiliate of the appointing party are incapacitated. A comprehensive list is enumerated in Schedule 5 and Schedule 7 and admittedly the persons empanelled by the Respondent are not covered by any of the items in the said list. 25. it cannot be said that simply because the person is retired officer who retired from the government of other statutory corporation or public sector undertaking and had no connection with DMRC (party in dispute), he would be treated as ineligible to act as an arbitrator. Had this been the intention of the legislature, the Seventh Schedule would have concerned such persons as well. Bias or even real likelihood of bias cannot be attributed to such highly qualified and experienced persons, simply on the ground that they served the Central Government or PSUs, even when they had no connection with DMRC. The very reason for empanelling these persons is to ensure that technical aspects of the dispute are suitable resolved by utilising their expertise when they act as arbitrators. It may also be mentioned herein that the Law Commission had proposed the incorporation of the Schedule which was drawn from the red and orange list of IBA guidelines on conflict of interest in international arbitration with the observation that the same would be treated as the guide 'to determine whether circumstances exist which give rise to such justifiable doubts'. Such persons do not get covered by red or orange list of IBA guidelines either."
(3.) Very often past officers of the government or government organisations with a great deal of technical expertise or professional knowledge are included in the panel so as to effectively arbitrate upon specified disputes. Hence, being a past officer of the government or a government organisation does not per se make a person ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator under the Seventh Schedule. In my opinion, if after appointment of an eligible person it is found that the arbitrator is biased in favour of his previous employer or is not impartial or that a doubt occurs in the minds of reasonable persons that the arbitrator is not independent or is biased or is partial, or circumstances as mentioned in the fifth schedule exist then the procedure under Section 12 and 13 is open to a party to challenge him, asking him to withdraw from office or for ask for his removal by the court under Section 14 of the said Act. Now, very briefly I come to the facts of this case. On 3rd June, 2011 the parties executed a formal agreement under which the petitioner was to supply, install and commission internet protocol based surveillance system, personal baggage screening system and explosive detection and disposal system at twenty three metro railway stations at Kolkata. A letter of acceptance of the petitioners had already been issued by the metro railway on 25th February, 2011. It was modified on 11th April, 2011 with the concurrence of the petitioner. The petitioner had furnished with the metro railways a bank guarantee for Rs. 85,36,764 representing 5% of the contract value. The respondent, from time to time during execution of the contract, paid to the petitioner Rs. 8,34,59,446/-. According to the respondent the petitioner was guilty of delay and unsatisfactory work and supply of materials. According to the petitioner the respondent was in breach of the contract by not performing their obligations under it like providing a proper infrastructure, approval of the drawings and diagrams submitted by the petitioner, failing to issue certification etc. The contract was governed by the general condition of contract of the railways including the Arbitration Clause-63. The contractor, after one twenty days but within 180 days of his presenting the final bill on disputed matters could demand in writing that the disputes be referred to arbitration. The demand for arbitration should specify the exact disputes between the parties. In case the claim exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs the arbitral panel under Clause-64 (3) (a) (ii) was to comprise of a panel of three gazetted railway officers. The railways were required to send a panel more than three names of gazetted railway officers of one or more departments including the names of retired railway officers empanelled to work as railway arbitrators to the contractor within sixty days from the day a written and valid demand for the arbitration is received by the General Manager. The contractor would be asked to suggest at least two names out of the panel for appointment as contractor's nominee arbitrator, out of which the General Manager would have to appoint one. The General Manager would simultaneously appoint the balance number of arbitrators either from the panel or from outside the panel. I need not recount the details of the proceedings taken before this court by the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator. I shall only refer to the last application made by them under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (AP 52 of 2017). By an order dated 15th February, 2017 this court directed the railways to furnish the names of three persons for nomination of an arbitrator to be made by the contractor "keeping in mind the fifth schedule to the Act". On 24th February, 2017 the metro railway authorities forwarded to the petitioner three names. According to the arbitration clause the contractor had to choose two out of which the railways would appoint one as the arbitrator. Now, this panel is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is against the permitted relationship of the arbitrator with the parties, mentioned in the fifth and seventh schedules. ;