Arbitrator – Ineligibility for non-disclosure of representation in the High Court for one of the parties to the arbitration – violation of mandate of Section 12 of AA – Award was set-aside.
Arbitrator – Ineligibility for non-disclosure of representation in the High Court for one of the parties to arbitration – violation of mandate of Section 12 of AA – Award was set-aside.
There was dispute between Bagri Group – one headed by Gopal and another by Bhaiya group headed by Bulaki Das Bhaiya.
In CS No.344 of 2014 and with the consent of the parties, the Sole Arbitrator (Senior Advocate of the Calcutta High Court) was appointed vide order dated 1.8.2014.
In the first meeting of 10.8.2014, the Arbitrator disclosed that he had earlier represented Bulaki and his group companies – a claimant in the arbitration proceedings. However, the award debtors expressed their full faith and confidence in the Arbitrator.
During the period of 2014 to 2017, as many as 127 meetings were held. On 3.1.2019 the Arbitrator declared that the draft award is ready.
However, the Arbitrator as Senior Advocate appeared in the High Court as lead Counsel for SSSMIL on 11 occasions during the period of 5th June to 19th July 2018.
SSSMIL was owned by another company which is owned by Bulaki Das Bhaiya and his family members and the address of the said company is the same as that of SSSMIL.
The Award was made on 29.2.2020 in favour of Bhaiya group for Rs.22 crores with interest.
The Arbitrator admittedly did not disclose or inform the parties he had appeared several times for SSSMIL during the hiatus period.
The impugned Award dated 29.2.2020 by the Sole Arbitrator was questioned in the instant cases on the ground of fraud and in conflict of public policy and/or fundamental policy.
Arbitrator was rendered himself ineligible by reason of his actions and non-disclosure thereof. Either bona fide or otherwise, the actions of Arbitrator were violative of mandate of Section 12 of AA and in particular, grounds No.11, 15 & 20 and the Fifth Schedule, 17 of the Seventh Schedule read with explanation 2 thereof
The impugned Award was set-aside.
Judgment dated 27.7.2023 of the Calcutta High Court in EC No.145 of 2020 of C and E Ltd (Components and Equipments Ltd) and another Vs. Gopal Das Bagri and others with connected with matters.
f3bceb3bd7eeb01a3ac30c4a895d0c9ec3c148af74bfe05200dd0f6f8fbbedc31700244344.pdf (ecourts.gov.in)
