VINDHYA TELELINKS LIMITED Vs. DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for parties. There is no. dispute that one of the terms of the arbitration is as under:

(2.) The Supreme Court'in a similar matter way back in 1996 in DGS&D & Ors. Vs. UP Asbestos Ltd. on 12/7/1996 took the view that the High Court "had to remain within the parameter of the Arbitration Clause 24 which clearly states that the reference shall be made to the Sole Arbitration of an officer in the ministry of Law. The Arbitrator appointed in the instant case is a retired Judge. Whereas the Arbitration Clause envisages the appointment of a person who is 'an Officer' in the Ministry of Law, meaning thereby who is in service at the relevant point of time. This is also the purport of this Court's decision in S. Rajan Vs. State of Kerala,AIR1992SC 1918" and the order of the High Court was set aside.

(3.) However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that having failed to appoint arbitrator on the request of the petitioner and after filing of the petition, the respondent could not deprive the petitioner of getting an independent arbitrator appointed by appointing an arbitrator Shri A.K. Mishra, GM, an officer of the Telecom Circle, Bihar, as arbitrator for settlement and determination of the dispute to arbitrate vide order dated 17/11/1999.