IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.9871/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR T., S/O.THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.17/1, OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.
…PETITIONER (SRI.A.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADV.) AND:
1. M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, NO.29/A, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. VASU, NO.17/1, GROUND FLOOR, NEW MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.J.ALVA, ADV., FOR R1;
V/O DATED 25.3.2019; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FILED ON 22.02.2019 BY PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED ON THE FILE OF A.C.NO.1416/2018 BEFORE THE LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR H.A.PRABHAKARA AT BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. A. Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel for petitioner.
Sri. M. J. Alva, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the arbitrator to consider the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner on 22.02.2019.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an objection as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity). However, the arbitrator has not decided the objection preferred by the petitioner in the manner indicated under Section 13(3) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the objections raised by the petitioner is misconceived and the arbitrator is an independent person.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The relevant extract of Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act reads as under:
13. Challenge procedure – (1) x x x (2) Failing any agreement referred to in sub- section (1), a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstances referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 12, send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal.
(3) Unless the arbitrator challenged under sub- section (2), withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge.
6. From a perusal of Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act in conjunction, it is evident that if an objection which is contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act is raised, the Arbitral Tribunal has to decide on the challenge. In the instant case, the petitioner has made the objection as asserted by him under Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the objection preferred by the petitioner as contemplated under Section 13(3) of the Act by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the objections raised by the petitioner.
Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RD