SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. ONGC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave assails the correctness of the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the High Court at Bombay. By the judgment and order the petition of the first respondent for the issuance of a direction to the second respondent to file the award that he had made as the umpire in arbitration proceedings between the appellant and the first respondent in that Court was allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, these are the facts relevant to the issue in the appeal: The appellant and the first respondent entered into a contract on 7th September, 1983, whereunder the appellant agreed to install and commission on turnkey basis an oil platform at Bombay High, about 100 miles north-west of Bombay. The contract stipulated the following:

(3.) Disputes having arisen subsequent to the completion of the work under the contract, the appellant served notice of arbitration on the first respondent and appointed Mr. Robert A. Mac Crindle its arbitrator. The first respondent appointed Mr. Justice Chandrasekhar (Retired) its arbitrator. The arbitrators nominated the second respondent as the umpire. Preliminary hearings commenced. The appellant then applied to the Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court in London for leave to issue and serve on the first respondent an Originating Summons seeking an order under S. 5 of the English Arbitration Act, 1979, to confirm that the arbitrators had the power to proceed with the arbitration in default of a defence having been served by the first respondent. A learned Judge of the Commercial Court granted to the first respondent leave to issue and serve the said summons. It was heard and decided in favour of the appellant. Thereafter the first respondent's defence was served, and a summons was issued on the first respondent's behalf in the Commercial Court to set aside its earlier orders. The application made by the first respondent was decided on 23rd July, 1993 by Potter, J. (The judgment and order is reported in (1994) 1 Lloyd's Law Reports 45). The arbitrators having differed, the second respondent entered upon the reference and, on 27th June, 1995, made his award. The award was served on the first respondent on 10th July, 1995.