CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in both this petitions and between same parties, present Arbitration petitions are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN both this Arbitration petitions, respective petitioners have approached this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) to appoint Presiding Arbitrator or direct Director General (RD), Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in respective contracts between petitioner and concerned respondents being Contract Nos. V to X of the Ahmedabad Vadodara Expressway Project in Gujarat. One arbitrator each came to be appointed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat and one Shri P. B. Vijay was appointed as Presiding Arbitrator whose name was nominated by Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highway as per the arbitration agreement between the parties. Arbitration proceedings were proceeded further, however, due to ill-health of Shri P. B. Vijay, Presiding Arbitrator, he had shown inclination not to continue with arbitration proceedings and therefore, another Presiding Arbitrator was to be appointed in his place. Therefore, respective petitioners approached Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways to appoint one another Presiding Arbitrator in place of Shri P. B. Vijay by suggesting the name of Shri K. S. Gangadharan. Before any appointment of Presiding Arbitrator could be made by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, Shri P. B. Vijay was operated upon and he was able to work as Presiding Arbitrator and therefore, respective petitioners requested that Shri P. B. Vijay be continued as Presiding Arbitrator. However, State Government respondent No. 1 objected to continuation of Shri P. B. Vijay as Presiding Arbitrator and therefore, as neither new Presiding Arbitrator was appointed nor Shri P. B. Vijay was continued as Presiding Arbitrator and as due to above arbitration proceedings were not being proceeded further, respective petitioners have approached this Court by way of present Arbitration petitions and requested that either Shri P. B. Vijay be continued as Presiding Arbitrator or Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India be directed to appoint fresh Presiding Arbitrator in place of Shri P. B. Vijay for resolving the dispute between the parties arising out of aforesaid contracts.