- (1.) By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has made, the award of the Arbitrator, the Rule of the Court.
(2.) Assailing the impugned order, the only submission made is, that the arbitrator Shri Satya Narain Khanna was not qualified, rather disqualified, to be the arbitrator, and therefore, the award made by him is wholly without jurisdiction, and should have been set aside by the learned trial Court. The disqualification, or disability, contended is, that in the arbitration agreement, he is one of the witnesses, and since according to the learned counsel, he is a witness to the agreement, he could not be the arbitrator. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand, reported in AIR 1957 SC 425 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, reported in (1963) 7 Fac LR 269. Learned counsel also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4274/2004 D. K. Parihar v. Union of India, decided on 19-10-2004 : (2004) 4 WLC 724).
(3.) Since it is not in dispute that the arbitrator was one of the witnesses to the arbitration agreement, the matter does not involve any factual aspect. In that view of the matter, I straight way take up the cases cited by the learned counsel.;