S. KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. ENGINEERING PROJECTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed under Sec. 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), seeking to appoint an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the petitioner and the respondent pursuant to the work order Nos.SRO/PMD/683/041 dtd. 6/5/2013, SRO/PMD/686/044 & SRO/PMD/686/045 both dtd. 19/6/2013 respectively and Clause 76 of the General Conditions of Contract for the appointment of sole Arbitrator and to direct the respondent to pay the cost of this petition.

(2.) Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties would submit that the present dispute is arising out of the work order Nos.SRO/PMD/683/041 dtd. 6/5/2013, SRO/PMD/686/044 & SRO/PMD/686/045 both dtd. 19/6/2013 respectively. They would further submit that the present dispute is arbitrable in terms of Clause 76 of the General Conditions of Contract, which reads as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, an appointment of Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 76 of the General Conditions of Contract, is non-est in law since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Ors. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., reported in (2020) 20 SCC 760, has held that a person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof must not only be ineligible to act as an arbitrator and that such person cannot and should not have any role in charting out any course to the dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an arbitrator. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of Arbitrator.