LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-74

PRAKASH PRAMESH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

Decided On September 23, 2002
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Appellant
V/S
KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1710/2002 and 1719/2002. These writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law. The facts lie in a narrow compass.

(2.) The short point involved in these petitions is: whether the Chief Justice or his nominee can remove the named Arbitrator and appoint an independent Arbitrator, secondly whether when one party has appointed an Arbitrator through beyond the period stipulated in the Act, the Chief Justice or his nominee could, when approached by the other party, appoint another (sole) Arbitrator?

(3.) In order to answer the same we may have quick glance to the facts of this case. Respondent No. 1 M/s. Kiran Construction Company was awarded construction of civil and structural works by the petitioner for its plant building and pump foundation for Indian Oil Corporation, Bhatinda Oil Terminal. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause with clear stipulation that in case of dispute the named Arbitrator or his nominee will adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Dispute arose between the parties. Accordingly respondent No. 1 approached the named Arbitrator on 6th July, 1998 for entering upon reference in terms of arbitration clause. The petitioner vide its letter dated 20th October, 1999 requested the respondent herein to specify the points of dispute. The respondent No. 1 enumerated the dispute vide its letter dated 4th December, 1999. However, when the named Arbitrator did not enter upon the reference nor nominated any Arbitrator, the respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). While the proceedings were pending before the learned Single Judge, the named Arbitrator nominated Shri C. Ramachandran, Dy. General Manager (HR) of Indian Oil Corporation on 4th April, 2000 as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes raised by the "respondent No. 1. The said Shri C. Ramachandran, the sole Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 28th April, 2000. He issued notices to the parties and directed the respondent No. 1 to file its statement of claim. The fact of appointment of Shri C. Ramachandran, as the sole Arbitrator, was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 28th September, 2001 held that since the appointment of Shri C. Ramachandran was made after the expiry of 30 days, hence, the petitioner lost its right to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order appointed a former Judge of this High Court as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator so appointed by the learned Single Judge entered upon the reference on 9th November, 2001. He also issued notices to the parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28th September, 2001 this writ petition has been preferred.