JUDGMENT
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) In response to the notice issued in a petition filed u/S. 14 of the Arbitration Act by the petitioner-Y.P. Bhalla, the sole arbitrator Shri K.S.R.K. Shankar Rao filed the award dated 21.1.88 and the proceedings on which due notices were given to the parties and Objection Petition LA. No. 3128/89 has been filed by National Seeds Corp. u/Ss. 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award.
(2) The only ground on which the award is challenged is that the arbitrator had acted in most arbitrary manner inasmuch as he had not given any opportunity of hearing inclusive of leading evidence despite requests and thus, the award has been given by the arbitrator in violation of principles of natural justice which amounts to judicial misconduct on the part of the arbitrator vitiating the award.
(3) The petitioner contested the objections and asserted that sufficient opportunity was given to both the parties by the arbitrator for filing documents and evidence and after considering written submissions given by the parties and also the oral arguments the arbitrator gave the award and the arbitrator bad not committed any misconduct and thus the award is liable to be made a rule of the court.
(4) Following issues were framed : (1)Whether the objector was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing as alleged in the objection petition and the award is liable to be set aside ? (2) Relief.
(5) Issue No. 1 I have gone through the proceedings of the arbitrator and find that the arbitrator upon the reference on 6.5.86 had called upon the petitioner to file his claim. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 and the disputes having arisen from the aforesaid contract which contained an arbitration clause, the petitioner in consonance with the arbitration clause required the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 to nominate an arbitrator to decide the disputes arising in the said contract. The arbitrator is the senior officer of respondent No. 1. The arbitrator held various sittings (r)nd had on 18.11.86 with mutual consent of the parties fixed time schedule for inspection of the record by the parties and required the claimant to file its evidence by a particular date and the respondent was directed to file the evidence by 30.1.87 and the next date of hearing was fixed as 17.2.87. Then it was changed to 28.2.87 on the request of respondent No. 1 and thereafter another time schedule was fixed for filing the evidence by both the parties by a particular date i.e. 15.4.87 by claimant and 22.4.87 by respondent No. 1-Objector. The claimant was granted some more time for filing the supporting evidence by 15.5.87 and the case was fixed for 19.5.87. It may be mentioned here that parties have been agreeing to extend the time for making of the award before the arbitrator and thus, proceedings continued before the arbitrator till May, 1987. When another period of extention was necessary for making of award, respondent No. 1 did not agree to extend the time but in the objection petition nothing has been mentioned as to why respondent No. 1 thought it fit not to agree to mutual extension of time for making of the award as was being done on previous occasions.
(6) The petitioner then approached this court and vide order dated 24.9.87, the court extended the time for making of the award by four months. The arbitrator being apprised of this order, may be by the petitioner, issued notice fixing the date of hearing as 29.9.87 The first grievance raised by petitioner is that no notice had been given to counsel for respondent No. 1 but he admits that notice was properly served on respondent No. 1. So, it is not understood how it could be said that the arbitrator had acted in any unreasonable manner in holding the proceedings on 29.9.87 in absence of counsel for respondent No. 1. It was for respondent 1 to make the arrangement for appearance of its advocate on the date fixed. The arbitrator had recorded the proceedings on 29.9.87 in presence of the petitioner as well as representatives of respondent 1 including its Sae and Civil Engineer. It was mentioned in the order “as legal advisor of respondent 1 had not come to attend the hearing, the case is adjourned to 8.10.87 and in case there is any difficulty in legal advisor of respondent No. 1 not appearing on that day, then arguments in writing may be filed.”. On 8.10.87, an application was moved on behalf of respondent 1 in which it was mentioned that the stage for advancing the arguments in the case had not. arrived and the arbitrator should at first get the documents of respective parties admitted and denied and if some documents of respondent 1 are not admitted by the opposite party an opportunity be afforded to respondent 1 for leading evidence to prove these documents. A request was made that adequate time may be given to respondent 1 for filing some supporting documents. The arbitrator passed the o;der declining to agree with the procedure mentioned in that petition and gave the time to respondent 1 to file the documents by 26.10.87 and adjourned the case to27.10.87, for hearing the arguments. On the fixed date counsel for respondent 1 made certain prayers and the arbitrator gave further time to the respondent for filing the documents on or before 4.11.87 and fixed 12.11.87, onwards for hearing (he arguments. It is admitted before me by the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents were filed on different dates and thereafter the arguments were advanced before the arbitrator.
(7) Now the question to be decided is whether the arbitrator had not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent. There was no prayer made to the arbitrator at any time that respondent wanted to examine any particular witness before the arbitrator and such a prayer had been declined by the arbitrator. It was not incumbent upon the arbitrator to have followed the procedure for taking the proceedings as suggested by the respondent. The arbitrator appears to have given adjournments to the respondent for filing the evidence and the respondent had filed the documents. So, it is not understood how it could be inferred from these facts that principles of natural justice have been violated by the arbitrator in any manner. Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to some cases in support of his contentions which I shall now discuss.
(8) The first case cited before me is Tirath Singh vs. Isher Singh Air 1948 Lahore 50. In the said case a request had been made to the arbitrator for examining particular witnesses but the arbitrator declined to examine these witnesses. It was held that the arbitrator may give his reasons for shutting out a certain amount of evidence sought to be tendered by a certain party. It is, however, not open to the arbitrator to refuse to grant an opportunity to a party to produce evidence on the ground that there was no necessity to examine witnesses or hear counsel By telling the parties that there was no necessity to examine witnesses or hear counsel !he arbitrator is guilty of judicial misconduct. The case is distinguishable on facts. Here the arbitrator had not declined any request of the respondent for examining any particular witness, rather the request of the respondent’s counsel for adjournment to enable the respondent to file documentary evidence was agreed to by the arbitrator and the respondent filed the documents and after evidence had been filed in the shape of documents, the respondent’s counsel had advanced arguments and no grievance was made before advancing the arguments that any evidence still remains to be examined by the respondent before the arbitrator. So, it cannot be said that in the present case the arbitrator had committed any judicial misconduct.
(9) Reference was made to Kamla Prasad Nigam vs. Ram Dayal . In this case what has been laid down as principle of law is that it is the inherent right of a party in any judicial proceeding to offer all his relevant and material evidence before the authority seized of the matter to prove his claim or title and where, therefore, there vas unqualified refusal on the part of the arbitrator to record any oral evidence whatsoever in a case in which it was not intended that he should decide the matter without taking all relevant evidence as either pray wished to produce, he is guilty of misconduct. There is no dispute about this proposition of law but this proposition of law is not applicable to the facts of (he present case, as discussed above.
(10) The learned counsel for the respondent also cited Babulal Garodia vs U.O.I. Air 1989 Noc 98 (Gauhati). In the said case, the request of the party to adduce further evidence was declined. It was held that it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The full report of the judgment is not available to know as to what sort of evidence was sought to be produced and how the arbitrator dealt with such a request. Hence, no support can be drawn from this judgment of Gauhati High Court in support of the contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the present case the arbitrator had violated any principle of natural justice.
(11) The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Union of India vs. M/s. Ranjan Brothers Air 1969 Patna 124. In the said case the records of the proceedings before the arbitrator clearly showed that the arbitrator had given notice to the parties to file documents and ultimately he had afforded opportunity for filing documents and for hearing arguments at length. It was held that the principles of natural justice demand that the arbitrator should follow such a procedure which a reasonable man would follow in deciding a dispute impartially in the absence of any special procedure agreed or consented to by the parties. The proceedings before arbitrator need not be conducted with such meticulous care as is required in ordinary Civil Court so long as there is substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. I agree with the enunciation of law given in this D.B. judgment with regard to the procedure to be followed by the arbitrator in deciding such matters. So, I hold that the award does not stand vitiated in the present case for any judicial misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The award is not liable to be set aside on the objections raised by the respondent. This issue is decided against the respondent.
(12) Issue No. 2. Objection petition is liable to be dismissed and the award is liable to be made a rule of the court. Award decreed.