JUDGMENT 1. In all the above Original Petitions (O.Ps), appointment of Arbitrator by the first respondent, is put to challenge on the ground that the same is illegal and void in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India on the subject matter. According to the petitioner, the arbitration clause in the agreement is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 (Parkins Eastman Architects DPC and another Vs. HSCC (India) Limited). Hence, unilateral appointment of arbitrator P.Rosaiah, is in contravention of the provisions of the said Act and also the said decision of the Supreme Court. 2. Short facts which gave rise to the filing of the present Original Petitions (O.Ps) are that the petitioners have approached the first respondent- Company for a vehicle loan facility. A loan agreement was entered into between the parties on 13.02.2019 and loans were advanced by the first respondent-Company to the petitioners repayable by 60 monthly instalments. Dispute arose under the agreement on the alleged non-payment of the loan amounts and the first respondent-Company invoked the arbitration clause and issued notice dated 20.07.2021, calling upon the petitioners for payment of the outstanding amounts due to them and in case of any default of the payment, the dispute will be referred to sole arbitrator. Subsequently, one Mr.P.Rosaiah, a retired District Judge was appointed as Arbitrator by the first respondent-Company. 3. The present O.Ps. are filed challenging the specific clause in the agreement for appointment of Arbitrator and also notice appointing the Arbitrator on the ground that the first respondent-Company cannot unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator in terms of the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Arbitrator appointed by the first respondent-Company appeared to be their paid employee and as such, he cannot be expected to conduct impartial arbitration proceedings. According to the learned counsel, cyclo-styled format is being followed by the said Arbitrator and the very same Arbitrator had conducted numerous proceedings without following the due process of law, by unjustly helping the first respondent-Company to recover the monies which were clearly time-barred and unsustainable in law. 5. According to the learned counsel, cyclo-styled format is being followed by the said Arbitrator and the very same Arbitrator had conducted numerous proceedings without following the due process of law, by unjustly helping the first respondent-Company to recover the monies which were clearly time-barred and unsustainable in law. 5. In the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, no semblance of principles of natural justice is being followed and many a time, the Arbitrator operates from the first respondent-Company's address. As a matter of fact, it is imperative on the part of the learned Arbitrator to disclose his past and present relationship with the interested parties. The learned counsel also cited a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sawarmal Gadodia Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, in Arb.P.No.562 of 2019, in which, by order dated 15.05.2019, the Award was set aside on the ground that the non-disclosure of relationship, was fatal. 6. In the above circumstances, the borrower cannot expect impartial consideration of his or her defence against the claim, by the first respondent-Company. Moreover, the Courts have frowned upon such unilateral appointment of Arbitrator and held that such appointment cannot be countenanced in law. 7. On the above significant grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the notice by the first respondent-Company, appointing the Arbitrator and the consequential arbitral proceedings. 8. The learned counsel while referring to the above decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 (Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd) on the aspect of unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 21, 24 and 25 therein, which are extracted hereunder: "21. But, in our view that has to be the logical deduction from TRF Limited (TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, 2017 (8) SCC 377 ). HSCC (India) Ltd) on the aspect of unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 21, 24 and 25 therein, which are extracted hereunder: "21. But, in our view that has to be the logical deduction from TRF Limited (TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, 2017 (8) SCC 377 ). Paragraph 50 of the decision shows that this Court was concerned with the issue, “whether the Managing Director, after becoming ineligible by operation of law, is he still eligible to nominate an Arbitrator” The ineligibility referred to therein, was as a result of operation of law, in that a person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof, must not only be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but must also not be eligible to appoint anyone else as an arbitrator and that such person cannot and should not have any role in charting out any course to the dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an arbitrator. The next sentences in the paragraph, further show that cases where both the parties could nominate respective arbitrators of their choice were found to be completely a different situation. The reason is clear that whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator. That has to be taken as the essence of the amendments brought in by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 3 of 2016) and recognised by the decision of this Court in TRF Limited (TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, 2017 (8) SCC 377 ). 24. In Voestalpine (Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. - 2017 (4) SCC 665 ), this Court dealt with independence and impartiality of the arbitrator as under: “20. Independence and impartiality of the arbitrator are the hallmarks of any arbitration proceedings. Rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice which applied to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. - 2017 (4) SCC 665 ), this Court dealt with independence and impartiality of the arbitrator as under: “20. Independence and impartiality of the arbitrator are the hallmarks of any arbitration proceedings. Rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice which applied to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. It is for this reason that notwithstanding the fact that relationship between the parties to the arbitration and the arbitrators themselves are contractual in nature and the source of an arbitrator's appointment is deduced from the agreement entered into between the parties, notwithstanding the same non-independence and non-impartiality of such arbitrator (though contractually agreed upon) would render him ineligible to conduct the arbitration. The genesis behind this rational is that even when an arbitrator is appointed in terms of contract and by the parties to the contract, he is independent of the parties. Functions and duties require him to rise above the partisan interest of the parties and not to act in, or so as to further, the particular interest of either parties. After all, the arbitrator has adjudicatory role to perform and, therefore, he must be independent of parties as well as impartial. The United Kingdom Supreme Court has beautifully highlighted this aspect in Hashwani vs. Jivraj ( 2011 (1) WLR 1872 : 2011 UKSC 40 ) in the following words : (WLR p. 1889, para 45) “45. … the dominant purpose of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators is the impartial resolution of the dispute between the parties in accordance with the terms of the agreement and, although the contract between the parties and the arbitrators would be a contract for the provision of personal services, they were not personal services under the direction of the parties.” 21. Similarly, Court de Cassation, France, in a judgment delivered in 1972 in Consorts Ury, underlined that: “an independent mind is indispensable in the exercise of judicial power, whatever the source of that power may be, and it is one of the essential qualities of an arbitrator.” 22. Independence and impartiality are two different concepts. An arbitrator may be independent and yet, lack impartiality, or vice versa. Impartiality, as is well accepted, is a more subjective concept as compared to independence. Independence and impartiality are two different concepts. An arbitrator may be independent and yet, lack impartiality, or vice versa. Impartiality, as is well accepted, is a more subjective concept as compared to independence. Independence, which is more an objective concept, may, thus, be more straightforwardly ascertained by the parties at the outset of the arbitration proceedings in light of the circumstances disclosed by the arbitrator, while partiality will more likely surface during the arbitration proceedings. …….…..…… 30. Time has come to send positive signals to the international business community, in order to create healthy arbitration environment and conducive arbitration culture in this country. Further, as highlighted by the Law Commission also in its report, duty becomes more onerous in government contracts, where one of the parties to the dispute is the Government or public sector undertaking itself and the authority to appoint the arbitrator rests with it. In the instant case also, though choice is given by DMRC to the opposite party but it is limited to choose an arbitrator from the panel prepared by DMRC. It, therefore, becomes imperative to have a much broadbased panel, so that there is no misapprehension that principle of impartiality and independence would be discarded at any stage of the proceedings, specially at the stage of constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. We, therefore, direct that DMRC shall prepare a broadbased panel on the aforesaid lines, within a period of two months from today.” 25. In the light of the aforestated principles, the report of the Law Commission and the decision in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh (Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd - 2017 (4) SCC 665 ), the imperatives of creating healthy arbitration environment demand that the instant application deserves acceptance." 9. In the light of the above ruling , the learned counsel would submit that O.Ps. are liable to be allowed. 10. On behalf of the first respondent-Company, learned counsel made his submissions. He perfunctorily reiterated the facts that led to the initiation of the arbitral proceedings and the questionable appointment of the arbitrator by the first respondent-Company. However, as an effective response to the legal objection raised on behalf of the petitioners, there has been no plausible submission forthcoming, except contending that there is nothing wrong with the appointment of the Arbitrator. 11. However, as an effective response to the legal objection raised on behalf of the petitioners, there has been no plausible submission forthcoming, except contending that there is nothing wrong with the appointment of the Arbitrator. 11. This Court finds that what flows from the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred decision is that, it is legally no more open to a person or entity to appoint an arbitrator who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the arbitration. Such unilateral appointment would take away the concept of independence and impartiality of the arbitration, which are held to be the hallmarks of arbitration proceedings. 12. In these cases, it could be seen that multitude of arbitration proceedings had been concluded in favour of the first respondent-Company, mechanically or without any pretension of impartial adjudication. The arbitrator has gone about discharging his duties dutifully as a paid employee and servant of the first respondent-Company. Such arbitral exercise is a mockery of a dispute resolution mechanism/regime created under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 13. This Court, as a matter of fact, has witnessed several cliched/templated awards put to challenge by the aggrieved parties passed by the same learned Arbitrator. In all the cases, the learned Arbitrator has gone through the motion summarily, treating the proceedings as an empty ritual. Such arbitration proceedings are nothing but a charade and cannot be countenanced in law. 14. The awards fashioned on such shoddy and sham proceeding in the name of the arbitral exercise in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without a modicum of judicious application, amounted to caricaturing of dispute resolution mechanism. Stereotyping justice dispensation favouring one party alone, notwithstanding any possible legal defence against the recovery of claim, is a violative of the letter and spirit of the Act, 1996. 15. Moreover, in terms of Section 12(1) of the Amended Act, 2015 (3 of 2016) (of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act), read with Clauses 22 and 24 of the Fifth Schedule, if the appointment of the Arbitrator herein gives rise to a justifiable doubt as to the independence or impartiality, the mandate of the Arbitrator is liable to be terminated. The relevant Clauses as aforementioned are extracted hereunder: "Fifth Schedule (Refer Section 12(1)(b)) The following grounds give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of arbitrators: .. .. The relevant Clauses as aforementioned are extracted hereunder: "Fifth Schedule (Refer Section 12(1)(b)) The following grounds give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of arbitrators: .. .. Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case ... 22. The arbitrator has within the past three years been appointed as arbitrator on two or more occasions by one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. .. ... 24. The arbitrator currently serves, or has served within the past three years, as arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. ..." The scheme of the Act, 1996, thus place paramountcy on the independence and impartiality in the appointment of the Arbitrator. 16. No doubt, the claimants cannot be denied of their right to recover the monies due to them, but it does not mean that the claimants are entitled to resort to unfair, unjust and ignoble means towards realisation of their outstanding dues. 17. This Court is entirely in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As a consequence of the legal principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred decision, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the O.Ps. The appointment of the arbitrator unilaterally by the first respondent-Company with a sole view to sub-serve its own interest, is impermissible in law. In the said circumstances, mandate of the appointment of the arbitrator herein by the first respondent-Company, shall stand terminated. 18. Accordingly, the O.Ps. are allowed. Consequently, A.Nos. 3024, 3029, 3031 to 3333, 3035 to 3039 and 3043 of 2021 are closed. No costs.