KARUPPUDAYAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stated to be 81 years of age is still to see the beginning of the process to adjudicate his disputes, as the Tribunal appointed by the respondents has remained non-functional.

(2.) The disputes arise out of the tender floated by the first and second respondents for GOCShop-Construction of Room for the centralised overhauling facilities for GE Turbo Charges in DSL POH shop and proposed Auditorium adjacent to the existing basic Training Centre, in which the petitioner was the successful bidder and a letter of acceptance was issued to him on 11.09.2005 followed by an agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent dated 05.01.2006 for a contract value of Rs.33,82,456/-. There were admittedly delays in execution of the contract and the petitioner lays the blame on the respondents. The result was that the contract could not be concluded. The failure of the respondents had been set out in the petition, but that is not germane for deciding the present petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Suffice to say that in view of the existence of the arbitration clause, the petitioner filed O.P.No.878 of 2006 before this Court, which resulted in the respondents constituting the Arbitration Tribunal in accordance with the terms of the contract.

(3.) The petitioner lodged his statement of claim with documents under the covering letter dated 12.06.2009 and the arbitration proceedings continues to be at the same stage, six years down the line. No counter statement has been filed by the respondents despite the notice dated 09.01.2010, which prayed for re-constitution of the Tribunal, if there was unwillingness on part of the Arbitrators to proceed with the arbitration.