(1.) These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the question that arises for consideration is identical.
(2.) The Petitioners were all civil contractors who had entered into independent contracts with the Respondent. It transpires that during the execution of the contract, certain disputes having arisen, claims were raised by these Petitioners and the same not having been resolved, the Petitioners are before this Court invoking Sections 11(6) and 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' for brevity) seeking appointment of an arbitrator in terms of a clause providing for the manner for settlement of disputes in each of their contracts. The said clause reads as follows:
(3.) In the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harihchandra Reddy, 2007 1 ArbLR 148, cin a contract involving this very Respondent. In that case the contractor's request for reference to arbitration was refused. The contractor having approached this Court under Sec. 11(6), the Chief Engineer was directed to enter upon the reference as an arbitrator. Ultimately after adjudication, an award was passed. The same-was challenged by the Nigam before the competent court. The award having been confirmed by the civil court, an appeal under Sec. 37(1)(b) of the Act was filed. The appeal was dismissed. The Nigam was hence before the Supreme Court. The court held that the Nigam had failed to contend, either before the Arbitrator or the competent civil court, that the clause which was sought to be treated as an arbitration clause was not so. It was found that such a contention was taken only in appeal, hence the same was negated and it was observed that the Nigam had, by its conduct, conceded the contention that the clause was an arbitration clause. The court also found no merit in the argument that a Three Judge Bench of the apex court had referred the question involving interpretation of Clause 29 of the contract, to a Constitution Bench in the case of P. Dasaratharama Reddy complex Vs. Government of Karnataka in Civil Appeal 1586 /2004, and that the consideration of the case be postponed till after the hearing therein.