SACHIN GUPTA AND ANOTHERversusK.S. FORGE METAL PRIVATE LIMITED

                          (2013] 2 S.C.R. 215

1
                   SACHIN GUPTA AND ANOTHER                              A
                                    v.
               K.S. FORGE METAL PRIVATE LIMITED
                    (Civil Appeal No.2058 of 2013)
                           MARCH 01, 2013
                                                                         B
       [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

         ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996:

           s.34(2)(a)(iii) - Held: High Court could have set aside the   c
     Award u/s 34(2)(a)(iii) only on the ground that Award has been
      rendered against the respondent without issuance of any
      notice and without hearing the respondent - It was certainly
      not necessary to examine the dispute between the parties
      minutely or to make strong remarks against any of the parties      D
      - Judges at all levels are required to be restrained and
    : circumspect in use of the language, even when criticizing the
      conduct of a party- Having set aside the Award, it would have
      been appropriate if the matter had been referred back to the
      Arbitrator - Instead of leaving parties to seek their remedy in
                                                                         E
      accordance with law, the matter ought to have been referred
      to a specific arbitrator - Accordingly, arbitrator appointed -
      Judicial restraint.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     2058 of 2013.                                                       F

         From the Judgments & Orders dated 07.11.2012 of the
     High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAQ (OS) No. 539 of 2012.

          R.S. Suri, A.K. Singh, Ajay Baury, Shantanu Singh,
     Nikilesh Ramachandran for the Appellants.                           G

          San.deep Aggarwal, Manjeet Kirpal for the Respondent.

         The following order of the Court was delivered
                                   215                                   H
      216       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 2 S.C.R.


 A                                ORDER

            1. Leave granted.

          2. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants
      as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
. 8
        3. We are satisfied that the High Court could have set
   aside the Award only on the ground that the Award has been
   rendered against the respondent without issuance of any notice
   and without hearing the respondent. On this ground alone, the
 c Award was liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of
   the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There was no
   necessity for the learned Single Judge to convert itself into a
   Court of First Appeal. It was certainly not necessary to examine
   the dispute between the parties so minutely or to make such
 0 strong remarks against any of the parties. Judges at all levels
   are required to be restrained and circumspect in use of the
   language, even when criticizing the conduct of a party.
   However, we agree with the conclusion of the High Court that
   the Award had to be set aside as no notice had been served
 E on the respondent. But, having set aside the Award, it would
   have been appropriate if the matter had been referred back to
   the Arbitrator. In the event, any of the parties were not satisfied,
   an independent arbitrator agreeable to both the parties could
   have been appointed.

 F      4. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set
   aside the order passed by the High Court. As noticed above,
   instead of leaving the parties to seek their remedy in
   accordance with law, the matter ought to have been referred
   to a specific arbitrator. Learned counsel for the parties are
 G agreed that we appoint Mr. Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief
   Justice of the Delhi High Court, residing at F-6A, Hauz Khas
   Enclave, New Delhi-110 016, as the Arbitrator. We order
   accordingly. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to
   determine his remuneration/fees in consultation with the parties.
 H
   SACHIN GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. K.S. FORGE                      217
            METAL PRIVATE LIMITED
      5. It is made clear that the arbitrator shall proceed with the   A
arbitration proceedings without, in any manner, being influenced
by any observations made either by the learned Single Judge
or by the Division Bench of the High Court.
       6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.                     B
R.P.                                         Appeal disposed of.