HARYANA TELECOM LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, raising a significant question with regard to the scope and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short).

(2.) The appointment of the Arbitrator is sought by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that the respondent despite the invocation of the arbitration agreement, initially failed and neglected to appoint the Arbitrator and thereafter appointed the Arbitrator after filing of the present petition under Section 11 of the Act. The question to be considered by the Court in this petition is, despite the respondent having appointed an arbitrator after filing of the petition, can the Court proceed to appoint another arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act treating the appointment of arbitrator made by the respondent as being contrary to Datar Switchgear versus Tata Finance Co. Ltd. reported at (2000) 8 SCC 151 and of no effect.

(3.) Let us now notice the facts of the present case: Petitioner was a successful bidder in the tender floated by the respondent for procurement of underground PIJF telephone cables for the years 1995-96, 1996-97. Based on the Evaluation Committee, the petitioners claimed to be entitled to orders for a sizeable quantity of cables. Petitioner's grievance is that the contract to which they were entitled, were not given resulting in losses to them. A Writ Petition bearing No.1200/97 filed by the petitioner-Company was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner-Company to invoke the arbitration clause. On 25.4.2000, the Director General Telecome appointed Shri K.L. Jain, General Manager (Development) as the sole arbitrator in view of the letter by the petitioner dated 26/02/2000. Shri K.L. Jain indicated his unwillingness to act as arbitrator.