KERALA WATER AUTHORITY Vs. P T CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By the order sought to be reviewed, issued on 28th June, 2006, it was noticed that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there are disputes to be resolved. The named arbitrator had not entered on reference. Accordingly, following the decisions of the Apex Court in Datar Switchgears v. Tata Finance Ltd., 2000 KHC 1720 : 2000 (8) SCC 151 and Punj Lloyd v. Petronet MHB Ltd., 2006 KHC 129 : 2006 (2) SCC 638 , an arbitrator was appointed allowing the arbitration request.

(3.) This application for review is filed contending that the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties has no bearing because, it is part of local competitive bidding specifications and that the arbitration clause in such an agreement no more survives in view of the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998, for short, the "Act", which has come into force on 14th November, 1997, by virtue of S.1(3) of that Act. The learned counsel for the respondent in the review petition states that the operation of the Act has been stayed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions challenging that enactment.