- (1.) The only question raised in this Revision Petition is, whether the Court, after setting aside the award, could direct the Managing Director or direct the Arbitrator, who gave the award, or if somebody else had been appointed in his place, to such appointee to take further proceedings and give an award ?
(2.) The facts giving rise to the dispute may be noticed. The petitioner through petition challenged the Arbitration Agreement under Sections 5 and 12, read with Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, petition was dismissed on December 24, 1986. The Arbitrator gave an exparte award against the petitioner, i.e. Messrs Aggarwal Rice Mills, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as the Firm). The Firm on filing of the award in Court, raised objections against it and challenged its validity inter alia on the ground, that the same had been passed without service of notice and without affording an opportunity to the Firm to adduce evidence. Allegations of misconduct were also levelled against the Arbitrator. It was further claimed that the award was procured by the respondent-Markfed in collusion with the Arbitrator. The agreement of arbitration was never acted upon and was against law. The agreement was not applicable to the substandard, damaged and discoloured paddy supplied by the Markfed. The dispute could not have been referred to Arbitrator after the expiry of one year from the date of completion of the contract or from the date of its termination. Limitation provided under the general law cannot be curtailed. After the expiry of one year, the claim of the Markfed, in terms of the agreement had become barred by limitation. There are allegations of fraud having been committed by the Markfed and its officers on the Firm and its partners. Misconduct attributed to the Arbitrator was to the effect that a civil suit was pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge First Class, Faridkot, vide which the agreement in question was challenged. An application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act was preferred by the Markfed for staying the proceedings in the suit, which was dismissed. Later on, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act was not given. It was claimed that the Arbitrator was not competent to record the proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit, yet the Arbitrator recorded the evidence produced by the Markfed. Numerous other acts of misconduct during the Arbitration proceedings were attributed to the Arbitrator.
(3.) It was admitted that the suit of the Firm was dismissed for want of notice. The Markfed objected to the Arbitration Agreement being barred by time having been filed beyond thirty days. It was claimed that the Firm could not raise objections with respect to the arbitration Agreement as the same stood dismissed and the suit of the Firm was dismissed on December 24, 1986. Other objections raised were refuted. It was stated that in terms of the Arbitration Agreement, the Managing Director could either arbitrate himself or appoint somebody else to do so. The Managing Director appointed S.P. Singh, Senior Manager as an Arbitrator who gave the award, dated December 24, 1986 in favour of the Markfed.;