HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is a typical example of how public money is wasted by Public Sector Undertakings litigating frivolously on utterly technical issues. To avoid the wastage of public funds the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stressed for resolution of disputes through a mechanism of Committee of Secretaries in a judgment titled asONGC v. CCE 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 541. On 20.11.2008,this Court had directed the consideration for early resolution of disputes involved in the present case by the Committee of Secretaries. Today when we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to tell us the date on which the matter was referred to the Committee of Secretaries, the counsel was not able to convey the date. Accordingly, taking into account the fact that the dispute involved in the case is narrow, as it involves the interpretation of the arbitration agreement between the parties, we decided to take up the matter rather than adjourning it as the matter is pending in this Court for more than two years

(2.) HINDUSTAN Prefab Limited, i.e. the appellant, entered into contract with DDA for construction of residential flats and disputes arose over the contract. The material part of the arbitration Clause contained in the agreement reads as follows:-

(3.) THE submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that Clause 25 postulates the appointment of a named person i.e. a specific individual as the Arbitrator, and does not permit the appointment of an office as the Arbitrator by designation. In support of this submission Ld. Counsel for the appellant relies onA. Mohammad Yunus (Dead) by LRs v. Food Corporation of India & Anr. 2000 (2) Arb. LR 2 (SC).