JUDGMENT
A.H. Saikia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This arbitration appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 22.10.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No. TS (ARB) 119/97.
3. Assailing the impugned judgment it is strongly argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the sole arbitrator in passing the award dated 22.11.1997 misconducted in the related arbitration proceeding and the learned Judge totally ignored the objection so raised by the appellant in this regard resulting in miscarriage of justice and on this count alone the impugned award as well as the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside and quashed.
4. On close perusal of the impugned judgment and order as well as on overall consideration of the facts situation so emerged from the arguments of the parties, it is found that the appellant wholly failed to substantiate his such allegation of misconduct against the sole arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding as well as in passing the award. On the other hand, the learned judge in deciding the objection presented under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 categorically observed that the appellant as plaintiff also raised objection before the Chief Engineer stating that the sole arbitrator was acting arbitrarily against the interest of the appellant, however on the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, that objection was outrightly rejected by the Chief Engineer. After such rejection, it is seen that the appellant participated in the arbitration proceeding. More importantly, the appellant failed to place any materials on record to show that the sole arbitrator was being biased in favour of the respondents.
5. The Supreme Court in case of Prasun Roy v. The Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority and Anr. while deliberating on a similar point categorically held in paragraph-6 that once the party participated in the arbitration proceeding, the said party should not be allowed to blow hot and cold simultaneously to contend that the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
6. Thus, it can be said that a party is precluded from challenging the proceeding in which he participated. In the instant case since the appellant has admittedly participated in the arbitration proceeding and also having failed to get any relief against the objection so raised by him before the Chief Engineer, cannot be permitted to raise the question of ‘misconduct’ committed by the sole arbitrator. More so, there is no materials on record to show and/or substantiate the submissions of the appellant to the effect that the sole arbitrator ever misconducted himself in the proceeding.
7. In view of what has been discussed above as well as having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the above cited case, this Court does find no merit in this appeal.
8. Consequently the same stands dismissed. No costs.