Arbitration stay conditions, arbitrator bias, and single cause of action principles govern referral despite ancillary claims.

Readiness and willingness under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act need not be pleaded in any fixed formula if the record shows that the applicant had invoked arbitration and was prepared to proceed; contemporaneous correspondence may satisfy the statutory requirement. A railway officer is not disqualified as arbitrator merely because of departmental association or prior correspondence; bias requires a real likelihood of unfairness or a reasonable apprehension supported by material. A stay cannot be refused by adding a non-party claim or a consequential prayer where the plaint arises from a single cause of action and the real controversy falls within the arbitration agreement.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the applicant for stay under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act was required to make a specific averment of readiness and willingness at the commencement of the suit and at the hearing of the stay application; (ii) whether the General Manager or a nominated railway official was disqualified from acting as arbitrator on the ground of bias; and (iii) whether stay could be refused because the suit was said to include a claim by a non-party to the arbitration agreement or a matter outside the arbitration clause.

Issue (i): whether the applicant for stay under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act was required to make a specific averment of readiness and willingness at the commencement of the suit and at the hearing of the stay application

Analysis: The statutory condition is that the applicant must satisfy the Court that he was ready and willing to do all things necessary for the proper conduct of the arbitration both when the proceedings commenced and when the application was heard. A specific formula of words in the stay petition was not treated as indispensable where the surrounding record showed that the applicant had invoked the arbitration clause and was prepared to go to arbitration. The objection was also raised for the first time at the appellate stage, and the Court found from the contemporaneous correspondence that readiness and willingness existed.

Conclusion: The objection failed, and the stay application was not liable to be rejected on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the General Manager or a nominated railway official was disqualified from acting as arbitrator on the ground of bias

Analysis: Disqualification depends on a real likelihood of bias or a reasonable apprehension that the arbitrator will not act fairly. Mere participation in earlier correspondence or the fact that an officer belongs to the department does not, by itself, establish bias. The specific officer against whom bias was alleged had already retired, and no material was shown to justify an apprehension against the present General Manager or any subordinate official who might be nominated.

Conclusion: No disqualification on the ground of bias was established.

Issue (iii): whether stay could be refused because the suit was said to include a claim by a non-party to the arbitration agreement or a matter outside the arbitration clause

Analysis: The Court found that the plaint arose from a single cause of action and that the substantial dispute was between parties bound by the arbitration agreement. The additional prayer concerning the guarantee was only consequential to the main contractual dispute and did not create an independent subject-matter requiring separate adjudication. A party cannot defeat an arbitration agreement by adding an unnecessary party or a merely formal claim when the real controversy is referable to arbitration.

Conclusion: The entire subject-matter was held to be covered by the arbitration agreement, and stay was properly granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the order staying the suit under the arbitration clause was sustained.

---