LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-1015

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. Vs. SHAFIQ AHMAD

Decided On May 19, 2016
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd. Appellant
V/S
SHAFIQ AHMAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A saga of 2 scores and 6 years in a capsule

(2.) The petitioner engaged the Union in volley of demands, questioned the cancellation and reiterated the appointment of Arbitrator for appraisal of his claims already made and for fresh claims through the notice issued on 09.02.1973. Col. Gurdial Singh was appointed as the Arbitrator on 24.12.1973. There have been periodical appointments of Arbitrators in succession, some of them having resigned just soon after commencement of work, some without doing any work, till when the Court of the Sub Judge, 1st Class Chandigarh intervened in an application filed by the contractor under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act by appointing Mr. O.P. Gupta as Arbitrator in the application No. 268 to the order dated 05.04.1994. The Arbitrator gave an award on 27.08.1996 allowing for Rs. 25,46,000/- as the amount payable to the contractor by the Union. This award admitted some of the claims while rejecting some.

(3.) The award of the Arbitrator as well as his appointment culminated through challenges before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 18521, 18522, 18897 and 18898 of 1996. The Supreme Court through its order dated 12.08.1997 disposed of all the SLPs and directed the Chief Justice of this Court to himself hear the case sitting in a Division Bench and that the Bench would not be bound by any previous order passed by any other Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench proceeded to dispose of the civil revision in Civil Revision No. 1685 of 1994 on 31.01.2000 and the narration made in this case shall, therefore, be taken as truly reflective of the respective contentions of parties and the manner of how the judicial course has followed. Through this order dated 31.01.2000, the Division Bench was directing the matter to be considered by the Court of competent jurisdiction to consider the award of the Arbitrator. The issues considered were: