Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri H.N.M. Prasad, a practicing advocate, acted as an arbitrator and passed an arbitral award on 10.3.2015 in a dispute between Smt. Vasundhara Srinivasan (respondent No.1) and M/s Keppel Puruvankara Development Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2). Respondent No.1 challenged the award by filing Arbitration Suit No.62/2015 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. In that suit, respondent No.1 arrayed the arbitrator as defendant No.2 and summons were issued to him. The arbitrator filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the initiation of proceedings and the summons issued against him. The High Court held that an arbitrator is not a necessary or proper party to proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. The arbitrator's role is quasi-judicial and once the award is passed, the arbitrator becomes functus officio. The court observed that the arbitrator cannot be compelled to defend the award or be subjected to summons. Accordingly, the court quashed the summons issued to the petitioner and directed that the arbitrator shall not be arrayed as a party in the Section 34 proceedings. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Section 34 Proceedings - Party to Arbitration Suit - Arbitrator cannot be impleaded as a party or summoned as a defendant in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that an arbitrator is not a necessary or proper party to proceedings challenging the award, as the arbitrator's role is quasi-judicial and functus officio after passing the award - Initiation of proceedings and issuance of summons against the arbitrator was quashed (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an arbitrator can be arrayed as a party/respondent in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The initiation of proceedings and issuance of summons against the petitioner (arbitrator) in Arbitration Suit No.0000062/2015 on the file of City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-45) at Bengaluru are quashed. The arbitrator shall not be arrayed as a party in the Section 34 proceedings.
Law Points
- Arbitrator not a necessary party in Section 34 proceedings
- Summons to arbitrator liable to be quashed
- Arbitrator cannot be arrayed as respondent in arbitration suit
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (07) 9
Writ Petition No.28547/2015 (GM-CPC)
H N M Prasad (Party-in-Person)
Smt Vasundara Srinivasan, M/s Keppel Puruvankara Development Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash initiation of proceedings and issuance of summons against the petitioner (arbitrator) in an arbitration suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (arbitrator) sought quashing of the initiation of proceedings and issuance of summons arraying him as defendant No.2 in Arbitration Suit No.0000062/2015.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, an arbitrator, was summoned as a defendant in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award passed by him.
Issues
Whether an arbitrator can be arrayed as a party/respondent in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that an arbitrator is not a necessary party in Section 34 proceedings and cannot be summoned as a defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
An arbitrator is not a necessary or proper party to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award. The arbitrator's role is quasi-judicial and functus officio after passing the award, and cannot be compelled to defend the award or be subjected to summons.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
Sri.H.N.M.Prasad a practicing advocate of Bangalore City is the petitioner in the present case. He has passed an award in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 10.3.2015 relating to a case between Vasundhara Srinivasan and M/s.Keppel Puruvankara Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Procedural History
The petitioner, an arbitrator, passed an award on 10.3.2015. Respondent No.1 challenged the award by filing Arbitration Suit No.62/2015 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, arraying the arbitrator as defendant No.2. Summons were issued to the arbitrator. The arbitrator filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the summons and initiation of proceedings against him.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
- Constitution of India: Article 227
