NAPC LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contractor is the appellant questioning an order passed under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 setting aside an award on the ground of lack of authority and limitation. The appellant had partially succeeded before the arbitrator and the award provided for a sum of slightly over Rs.4.21 crore, inclusive of interest till the date of the award.

(2.) The contract was for the construction of a two-lane by-pass around Kanchipuram in the Villupuram Division connecting NH4 and the Kancheepuram - Vandavasi Road. It included the construction of a major bridge. The contract was, as accepted by the parties, for a period of 24 months from April 18, 2010. A first lot of claim was made by the contractor on January 9, 2012 for the period up to October, 2011, which was rejected by the respondent employer on March 9, 2012. The tenure under the contract was extended on or about April 17, 2012 for a period of seven months. On July 27, 2012, a second lot of claim came to be made by the contractor for the period November, 2011 to May, 2012. Again, the employer rejected the claim on September 7, 2012. On or about October 16, 2012, the tenure was extended for a further six months. On January 30, 2014, the third lot of claim was made by the contractor. There is no dispute that the demand for arbitration was made by the contractor on August 14, 2015. Under Sec. 21 of the Act of 1996, the commencement of arbitration happens upon a demand for an arbitral reference made by one party being received by the other party. Despite the demand for an arbitral reference in accordance with the arbitration clause found at clause 50 of the agreement between the parties which is dated April 19, 2010, the contractor was constrained to request the Chief Justice's Designate under Sec. 11(6) of the Act of 1996 to constitute an arbitral tribunal. A sole arbitrator was appointed.

(3.) Unfortunately, the arbitrator has been quite unnecessarily impleaded as a party to the appeal since the arbitrator was also impleaded before the arbitration court. It is completely unnecessary for arbitrators to be arrayed as party unless personal allegations are made and the arbitrator is required to answer such allegations. Despite several orders in such regard, the unsavory practice continues in this court, of needlessly impleading arbitrators.