K.D. Sharma, J. - (1.) This is an application in revision filed by Ganga Bai against an order of the Additional District Judge, Udaipur, dated 16th September, 1974, by which the petitioner's application under S. 5 of the Arbitration Act, for revoking the authority of the arbitrator, namely, Shri Amreek Singh, non -petitioner No. 2, and for his removal, was rejected.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to this revision -petition may be stated as follows: - -Ganga Bai, petitioner, and Basantilal, non -petitioner No. 1, entered into an agreement of partnership on 3rd December, 1971, for plying a bus under the name and style of M/s. Satyanarain Transports, Bansi, District Chittorgarh, on Udaipur -Banswara route via Salumber Asod and Loharia. Garga Bai's husband Shri Narain Lal agreed to transfer his bus No. RJQ 2762 to the partnership firm without charging any premium whatsoever. The agreement included an arbitration clause No. 10 which reads as follows: - - "In case of any dispute as regards to this indenture or any term or condition incorporated therein or with regards to interpretation thereof, shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Sardar Amrik Singhji s/o. Sardar Singhji,"
(3.) It was alleged by the petitioner that her husband Narainlal could not transfer the aforesaid bus to the partnership firm. However, Basanti Lal, non -petitioner No. 1 began to supervise and look after the running of the said bus as an agent holding general power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner and her husband Narain Lal. In the course of management of the bus, by Basanti Lal, there were disputes and differences between the parties regarding accounts and other matters mentioned in the petitioner's application under S. 5 of the Arbitration Act. As a result of the differences, the general power of attorney was cancelled and Basanti Lal was asked to furnish true accounts of the income and expenditure of the bus. Basanti Lal failed to furnish full and true account to the petitioner and her husband. Thereupon the matter was referred to Sardar Amrik Singh, Arbitrator, in pursuance to clause 10 of the partnership agreement. It is not disputed before me that the arbitrator gave his award on 2 -7 -74. The award as filed in the court, as is evident from the order -sheet of the lower court dated 7 -9 -1974. In these circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is whether the authority of Sardar Amrik Singh, arbitrator, can be revoked and whether he can be removed and a new arbitrator be appointed after he had made the award. Mr. J.S. Saluja appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended before me that the authority of an appointed arbitrator can be revoked with the leave of the court even after the award is made by him, provided the award has not been made the rule of the court and that there is no reason to restrict the operation of S. 5 of the Arbitration Act to cases where an award has not yet been made, in support of his above proposition Mr. Saluja relied upon Prafulla Chandra Vs. Panchanan ( : AIR 1946 Cal 426), wherein the following observations were made by Hon'ble Chakravartti J. at page 434: - "It might be asked whether S. 5 was not limited to cases where an award had yet to be made. I can see no reason to so limit its meaning Till an award is made a decree of the court, the submission remains and it can, within the language of the Sec. be revoked with leave." Mr. Dinkar Mehta appearing on behalf of the non -petitioners, on the other hand, argued, that the authority of an appointed arbitrator may be revoked before the award is actually made, because once an award is made by the arbitrator, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to apply to the court to have the award set aside, instead of applying for revocation of the authority. In support of his above contention, Mr. Dinkar Mehta relied upon Arbu Hindustan Steel Vs. Appejay (AIR 1967 Cal 391) Manni Lal Vs. Pahlad Das ( : AIR 1937 All 2141) and Rikhabdass Vs. Ballabhdas ( : AIR 1962 SC 551).;