LANCO INFRATECH LIMITED Vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act" in short), the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that it had entered into an agreement with the respondent for civil works of power house, transformers and butterfly valve caverns and switchyard of Teesta-VI Hydroelectric Project, Sikkim and other contract for civil works for various tunnels viz. main access tunnels, ventilation tunnels, escape tunnels, bus duct tunnels, pressure tunnels, tail race tunnels and twin head race tunnels from R.D 10370 upto junction with the bottom of serge tunnels including aid tunnels near Subinkhore of Teesta VI, Hydroelectric Project both dated 25.06.2008. The contract agreement under clause 67 stipulated a procedure that need to be followed in the event of disputes and differences that arise between the parties. Sub Clause 67.3 reads as under:-

(3.) That in the month of May, 2014, disputes and differences arose between the parties and as per clause 67.1 to resolve the disputes and reach an amicable settlement, several meetings were held from May, 2014 till October, 2014. However, the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement for resolution of disputes. As the parties failed to resolve the disputes, the respondent vide its letter dated 18.11.2014 invoked the arbitration clause for settlement of the alleged disputes in terms of clause 67.3 and appointed Mr.R.G. Kulkarni as its nominee arbitrator and requested the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator on its behalf within 30 days. Suffice to state, the said letter was received by the petitioner on 20.11.2014. In response to said letter, the petitioner identified and tried to contact a Retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court to take his consent to become an arbitrator on its behalf. Since the petitioner could not able to contact the Retired Hon'ble Judge, the petitioner vide its letter dated 17.12.2014 informed the respondent that the petitioner is in the process of finalizing its nominee arbitrator and may take more time than stipulated in the terms and conditions of the agreement. The petitioner's case is, immediately on receipt of consent from the Retired Hon'ble Judge, the petitioner informed the respondent vide letter dated 23.12.2014, of his nomination as its Arbitrator, and in this process a delay of 3 days had occurred. It is noted that on 22.12.2014 the respondent had sent a communication to the President of the Institute of Engineers (India), Kolkata, copy of which was received by the petitioner on 24.12.2014 stating therein that the petitioner had failed to appoint its arbitrator within a period of 30 days after the receipt of the said notice from the respondent, an Arbitrator be appointed to the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner company. The respondent had on 23.12.2014 sent a letter to the petitioner which was received on 26.12.2014 disagreeing with the extension of time for appointment of the Arbitrator by the petitioner.