LAWS(MAD)-2016-10-119

SRISHTI COMMUNICATIONS Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

Decided On October 07, 2016
Srishti Communications Appellant
V/S
GENERAL MANAGER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the appointment of Arbitrator and also the consequential order passed by the third respondent Arbitrator, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he entered into an agreement with Southern Railway for displaying commercial advertisement at the facade, Madurai Railway Station on 11.6.2011 for a period of five years commencing from 29.4.2011 to 28.4.2016. During the course of its business, certain disputes have arisen between the parties and consequently the first respondent herein has invoked the bank guarantee with a mala fide intention, thereby causing great loss to the petitioner's firm. In terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, an Arbitration clause is provided for reference to sole arbitration. Subsequently, the first respondent terminated the agreement with effect from 27.7.2015 and that the security deposit was forfeited. Since in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, an arbitration clause is provided for reference to sole arbitrator, the petitioner sent a communication to the first respondent on 23.07.2015 to refer to the disputes to arbitration as contemplated under the above clause of the tender agreement and not to en-cash the bank guarantee pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings.

(3.) Subsequently, on 27.10.2015, the first respondent by his communication dated 27.10.2015 nominated the third respondent as an Arbitrator to decide the disputes arisen between them. Though the said communication was forwarded to the third respondent, he received a communication from the third respondent only on 15.04.2016 for a meeting on 20.4.2016 for transparent discussion clarifying all doubts and getting direct appraisal for the letter dated 23.07.2015. On the said day, no discussion took place and ultimately the third respondent fixed hearing of the arbitration on 09.8.2016 and subsequently postponed to 29.8.16 to sort out the various aspects to proceed with the arbitration.