Arun Madan, J. - (1.) The revision petition has been preferred to this court against the impugned order dated 2.6.1995, passed by the learned A.D.J., Gangapur City in C.M.A. Arbitration Case No. 17/95, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-company under Sections 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act vide its impugned order referred to above. This case has a chequered history in which 4 arbitrators were appointed and none of them proceeded to hear the matter except N.P. No. 2 (Shri S.S. Juneja) of the Ministry of Urban Development. New Delhi, who though entered upon reference on 8.8.1991 and he concluded the hearing on 31.1.1994 on which date he had also directed the parties. to produce the documents, if any, within 20 days and which were submitted by the petitioner-company within the stipulated time, but non-petitioner No. I sought further time to do so and tiled the documents on 6.4.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner-company also filed its rejoinder within 15 days thereafter as directed by the learned arbitrator. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-company had also filed non judicial stamp papers as required by the learned arbitrator but, however, the award was not made by the learned arbitrator even after 10 months of the conclusion of the proceedings.
(2.) The contract, which is a subject-matter of dispute between the parties to the proceedings was on the basis of tenders, which were advertised by the C.P.W.D., New Delhi for construction of grain godowns of the capacity of 30,000 M.Ts. at Sawai Madhopur. The petitioner had applied for the tender. which was accepted by the respondent No. 1. The work was to commence w.e.f. 5.10.1984 and was required to be completed as per the agreement within a period of 12 months thereafter. But during the pendency of the contract, disputes arose between the parties and then N.P. No. 1 had alleged violation of some terms and conditions of the contract by the petitioner-company. Since no other arbitrator was appointed by the department, notwithstanding the service of notice by the petitioner-company, the petitioner was constrained to move the court for appointment of an arbitrator on 10.3.1986. The said application was accepted vide order dated 14.11.1986 passed by this court. Notwithstanding the aforesaid directions of this court, the respondents committed inordinate delay of 5-6 years in appointing an arbitrator and it was only in the year 1991 that first arbitrator was appointed and during the intervening period 1986-91 at least 4 arbitrators were appointed by the department, who refused to act after their appointment on one pretext or the other as a result of which the petitioner was subjected to irreparable loss and injury. Even the last arbitrator (Shri S.S. Juneja, N.P. No. 2), who was appointed to act as an arbitrator by the department on 25.7.1991 had committed inordinate delay of over two and a half years in completing the proceedings and did not give his award even after the expiry of 7 months of completion of the proceedings.
(3.) Under these aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner-company moved an application under Sections I I and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 16.11.1994 in the court of learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur praying therein that N.P. No. 2 be removed as an arbitrator and in his place any other independent person though retired from the same department and even higher in rank than the arbitrator (N.P. No. 2) be appointed, Since Shri S.S. Juneja had tailed to discharged all reasonable dispatch in the proceedings and had further failed to discharge his statutory duties as an arbitrator by neither giving nor publishing the award within the statutory period of 4 months as stipulated under the Act and had thus misconducted himself and consequently the proceedings before him stood vitiated,;