Pratibha Bannerjea, J. - (1.) This is an application under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act praying for removal of the sole arbitrator and revocation of his authority and/or appointment of another arbitrator in his place and stead.
(2.) The parties to the proceeding have last properties and business which consist of the number of private limited companies and partnership firms etc. Differences and disputes arose amongst the two groups the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other regarding the control and management of the aforesaid properties and businesses Several acts were filed by the parties and ultimately the parties entered into and arbitration agreement on 4th November, 1976 for resolving their disputes by arbitration of four named arbitrators. The agreement contained clause e): "The Arbitrators shall proceed summarily and will admit or reject evidence which they in their absolute discretion shall deem fit and proper." The named arbitrators held 15 sittings but could not make the award. The petitioner no. Therein, Rabindra Kumar Lohia, took out application being Matter No. 662 of 1979 or removal of the named arbitrators and for appointment of a new one. By an order dated 12-9-80, the four amed arbitrators were removed and the present arbitrators appointed. The new arbitrator entered upon the reference and proceeded with the arbitration. After 108 sittings were held, Rabindra Kumar took out an application on 7th November, 1983, being Matter No. 1950 of 1983, for removal of the arbitrator on various allegations. This application was dismissed by me by my order dated 15-2-85. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court but his special leave petition was also dismissed on 2-5-1985. Thereafter the arbitration proceeding again continued. On 4th October, 1985 the present and 3rd application was taken out by the petitioners for removal of the arbitrator on several grounds. It must be recorded here that the petitioners are not entitled to re-agitate the grounds taken in the application dated 7-11-1983 for removal of the arbitrator which was dismissed on 15-2-1985.
(3.) The new grounds agitated in the present application and pressed during the hearing are as follows : 1. The arbitrator is unable to control the arbitration proceedings. 2. The arbitrator is deliberately dragging on the proceeding. 3. The arbitrator is not taking advantage of the summary power given to him under clause (e) of the arbitration agreement. 4. The arbitrator refused to express his desire under Section 43 (1) of the Arbitration Act to enable the petitioners to produce the documents before him under subpoena. This shows lack of bona fides on the part of the arbitrator.;