P C JAIN Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of Arbitration Applications No. 82, 83, 84 and 85 of 2013 as the question of law involved in all the four applications is one and the same. However, for the sake of convenience, Arbitration Application No. 82 of 2013 is taken -up as the lead case.

(2.) ALL the four arbitration applications are filed by applicant - RC. Jain under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act, 1996 ') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of agreement dated 04/06/2011 entered into between the applicant and the non -applicants. Facts:

(3.) MR . Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that applicant has raised the dispute as per Clause 29 of the agreement firstly before the Superintending Engineer on 31/03/2012 (Annexure -A/5) thereafter, before the Chief Engineer on 27/06/2012 (Annexure -A/6) and ultimately, when both the parties have failed to settle the dispute, he has made a request to the State Government for constitution of an Arbitration Board (Annexure - A/7) vide letter dated 11/10/2012. When no action was taken, he has left with no other option except to make application before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996. He would further submit that under Clause 29, an agreement was entered into between the parties, in which, he was party to contract and there is valid and enforceable agreement between the parties. The Chhattisgarh High Court is appropriate High Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. He would finally submit that drilling of tube wells is not a subject matter of the agreement of works contract, therefore, the sole Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the dispute.