JOHNY J VILANGADAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Arbitration Requests, the parties are the same and the questions involved are identical. Therefore, these Arbitration Requests were heard jointly and they are being disposed of by this common order. The applicant and the first respondent entered into different contracts and separate agreements were executed between them. The agreements contain similar arbitration clause. Clauses 64 (3)(a)(i) and 64(3)(a)(ii) read as follows:

(2.) THE arbitration clauses in the model agreement were modified and there is some confusion with respect to the appointment of the arbitrator in cases where the total value does not exceed Rupees Five lakhs. It is stated that in A.R.Nos.36, 37 and 38 of 2010, the contract amount involved is less than Rupees Five lakhs. I do not think that this confusion would have any relevance in deciding these Arbitration Requests.

(3.) ACCORDING to the applicant, he complied with Annexure A6 order and nominated his nominee arbitrator from Annexure A5 panel given by the respondents. According to the applicant, though he complied with Annexure A6 order by issuing Annexure A7 letter dated 3.4.2006 nominating Sri.K.Masthan Rao from among the panel submitted by the Railways, Arbitral Tribunal was not constituted as directed in Annexure A6 order. Therefore, the applicant filed A.R.Nos.30 to 36 of 2006 on 16.8.2006. After filing A.R.Nos.30 to 36 of 2006, the Deputy General Manager/General for General Manager of Southern Railways issued Annexure A8 proceedings dated 19.9.2006 constituting an Arbitral Tribunal. The Chief Justice disposed of A.R.Nos.30 to 36 of 2006 by Annexure A9 order dated 13.12.2006, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: