KIRAN COSTRUCTION CO Vs. BHARTYA YANTRA NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order the two AAs 30 and 31 of 2000 can conveniently be disposed together because not only the parties are common, even the controversies as well as the facts are identical. It is therefore convenient to dispose them together.

(2.) The petitioner Ms. Kiran Construction Company has filed the petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It had been asserted that the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of civil and structural works pertaining to Part B i.e. Balance Civil and Structural works for plant building and pump foundation for IOC Bhatinda Oil Terminal. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. The work was completed to the entire satisfaction of the respondents but disputes have arisen between the parties. The petitioner requested respondent 3 for appointment of the sol arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause on 6/7/1998. Respondent no.3 did not make any appointment for a period of 10 months and a reminder was sent on 9/5/1999. Respondent no.3 responded to the letters only on 20/10/1999 and it was mentioned that petitioner should send the list of disputes which were required to be adjudicated. The petitioner sent a detailed list of disputes vide letter of 4/12/1999. Since then because no arbitrator was appointed and respondent no.3 is alleged to have maintained complete silence, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 have contested the petition. Preliminary objection has been raised that the petition has become infructuous because Shri C Ramachandaran, Deputy General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation has been appointed as the sole arbitrator on 4/04/2000. He has entered upon the reference and served a notice to both the parties. It is not disputed that in the contract there was an arbitration clause and that the petitioner had earlier written for appointment of the arbitrator in 1998,as alleged by the petitioner. It is denied that respondent 3 had maintained complete silence and it is reiterated that the arbitrator has since been appointed and therefore the petition must be taken to have become infructuous.