Woodfun Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Woodfun vs Union of India (Uoi)

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 29, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/699364

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/699364
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Decided On: May 29, 2009
Case Number: O.M.P. 439/2006
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 14, 15, 34, 38 and 39

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Woodfun

Advocate Sandeep Sharma, Adv

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi)

Advocate Preeti Dalal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 14, 15, 34, 38 and 39
Reported In: 160(2009)DLT339

Excerpt

- shiv narayan dhingra, j.1. this petition has been made by the petitioner under section 34 read with sections 11, 38 and 39 of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 (for short, 'the act') with a prayer that this court should terminate the mandate of the arbitrator mr. c.b. lal on the ground that the learned arbitrator had asked the petitioner to pay to him half of the amount of rs. 2,58,700/-, as the interim bill of his fee.2. the arbitrator in this case was to be appointed by respondent union of india, who initially appointed shri y.p.c. dange as arbitrator. after sometime mr. dange resigned and in his place shri a.k. singhal was appointed as the arbitrator who entered upon the reference and proceeded with the case till completion of pleadings. thereafter, he also resigned and mr. c.b. lal, the present arbitrator was appointed. mr. c.b. lal fixed hearing of the matter on 31st july 2006 and on that date asked each of the parties to deposit half of his bill of professional fees and costs. the petitioner has placed on record hand written note of mr. c.b. lal.3. in this case, since it is union of india who appointed the present arbitrator and the earlier arbitrators, in terms of arbitration agreement the arbitrator so appointed should have been a serving officer and in case it was not a serving officer and was a retired officer, union of india should bear the expenses of the arbitration. the arbitrator, while passing the award can always make an order qua costs. the mandate of the arbitrator cannot be terminated on the ground of higher fees being charged by him. section 14 and 15 lay down specific grounds on which the mandate of the arbitrator can be terminated. charging exorbitant fee is not a ground for termination of mandate of the arbitrator.4. if the present arbitrator continues, the respondent shall bear the costs of the arbitration and the arbitrator while passing the award may make an order in respect of the costs of the arbitration.the petition stands.....

Full Judgment

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. This petition has been made by the petitioner under Section 34 read with Sections 11, 38 and 39 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') with a prayer that this Court should terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator Mr. C.B. Lal on the ground that the learned Arbitrator had asked the petitioner to pay to him half of the amount of Rs. 2,58,700/-, as the interim bill of his fee.

2. The arbitrator in this case was to be appointed by respondent Union of India, who initially appointed Shri Y.P.C. Dange as arbitrator. After sometime Mr. Dange resigned and in his place Shri A.K. Singhal was appointed as the arbitrator who entered upon the reference and proceeded with the case till completion of pleadings. Thereafter, he also resigned and Mr. C.B. Lal, the present arbitrator was appointed. Mr. C.B. Lal fixed hearing of the matter on 31st July 2006 and on that date asked each of the parties to deposit half of his bill of professional fees and costs. The petitioner has placed on record hand written note of Mr. C.B. Lal.

3. In this case, since it is Union of India who appointed the present arbitrator and the earlier arbitrators, in terms of arbitration agreement the arbitrator so appointed should have been a serving officer and in case it was not a serving officer and was a retired officer, Union of India should bear the expenses of the arbitration. The arbitrator, while passing the award can always make an order qua costs. The mandate of the arbitrator cannot be terminated on the ground of higher fees being charged by him. Section 14 and 15 lay down specific grounds on which the mandate of the arbitrator can be terminated. Charging exorbitant fee is not a ground for termination of mandate of the arbitrator.

4. If the present arbitrator continues, the respondent shall bear the costs of the arbitration and the arbitrator while passing the award may make an order in respect of the costs of the arbitration.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2009 Same Parties Woodfun vs Union of India (Uoi) Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. Acts & Sections Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 14, 15,...

Arbitration