It was further alleged that the petitioner subsequently came to know that the sole arbitrator as a learned advocate represents ‘financiers’ in hire-purchase agreements and the points raised by the petitioner in the application under section 16 of the Act, if decided in favour of the petitioner, would affect the financiers in general.Ħ. The petitioner thus contended that the Tribunal not having disclosed to the petitioner or its learned advocate such fact, raised reasonable doubt about his impartiality. The main grievance of the petitioner in the above application was that in rejecting the application under section 16 of the Act, the Tribunal relied upon a document which was not at all produced before such Tribunal at the time of hearing and as such the aforesaid fact suggested that the Tribunal acted on a special knowledge of a fact relating to the opposite party. Thereafter the petitioner came up with an application under sections 12 and 13 read with section 18 of the Act thereby praying for withdrwal of the arbitrator from the office and/or from reference on the grounds stated herein.ĥ. The Tribunal by the order dated Februrejected the application under section 16 of the Act by a reasoned order.Ĥ. The petitioner after appearing before the Tribunal took out an application under section 16 of the Act challenging the validity and/or existence of the arbitration agreement and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the matter and also took other grounds touching jurisdiction.

Pursuant to an agreement dated Janubetween the parties, the opposite party preferred a statement of claim before the arbitral Tribunal consisting of a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provision contained in the Act.ģ. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.:-This Rule is directed against order dated Mapassed by an arbitral Tribunal in a proceeding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).Ģ.

Unik occasions inc