APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) "Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Under Clause 64 of the agreement dated 21.1.2007, the Respondent- Railways had appointed an Arbitral Tribunal comprising 3 Arbitrators to adjudicate on the disputes raised by the petitioner. The proceedings however did not reached to finality and the panel was revised twice thereafter. The third panel also got terminated. As per the petitioner, term of the third Tribunal terminated on issuance of the letter dated 23.5.2016 requesting the petitioner to suggest two names out of the panel named in the said letter to act as their nominee arbitrators. All four names were of the serving gazetted Railway Officers. There after, respondents have nominated 3 persons who are serving officers of Railway to constitute Arbitral Tribunal, one of them being Presiding Arbitrator by the order contained in Annexure-9 dated 31.1.2017.
(3.) In terms of Clause 64(7) of the agreement parties have agreed that provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 and the rules there under and any statutory modification thereof shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. Provisions of Section 12(5) Amended Act, 2015 however proscribe any person who has relationship with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute from being eligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. In view of Clause 64(7) of the arbitration agreement read with Section 12(5) of the Amended Act, 2015 brought into effect on 23.10.2015, Respondents could not have appointed officers of Railways themselves to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal.;