BANKA INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARBITRATION Petition No. 161 of 1995 has been filed by M/s. Banka (India) Ltd. , for enlargement of time to enable the 2nd Respondent therein to make his award. Arbitration petition bearing Lodging No. 246 of 1995 is filed by Union of India for removal of the 2nd respondent as the Umpire under the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, (for short, 'the Act' ). Arbitration Petition filed by the Union of India is yet to be numbered. However, since the subject-matter of both these petitions are correlated, both the petitions have been finally heard together at the stage of admission itself and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 161 of 1995 are 1st Respondents in Arb. Petn. Lodging No. 246 of 1995 and the Petitioners in Arb. Petn. Lodging No. 246 of 1995 are 1st respondents in Arb. Petition 161 of 1995. The 2nd Respondent in common in both the petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred in this judgment as per their description in arbitration Petition No. 161 of 1995.

(3.) THE 1st Respondents had invited tenders for the work of construction of a tunnel. The petitioners had submitted their tender which was accepted by the 1st Respondents and the work was awarded to the Petitioners. A formal contract bearing No. C and S/568 dated 6th February, 1985 was entered into by and between the Petitioners and the 1st Respondents. The date of commencement of the said work as per the said Contract was 30th July, 1984 and the work was required to be completed within a period of 24 months from 30th July, 1984. Since the said work could not be completed within the stipulated period, disputes and differences arose between the petitioners and 1st Respondents which were referred to arbitration in accordance with Clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract forming part of the said Contract. An Arbitration suit No. 3266 of 1987 was filed since the General Manager of the 1st Respondents failed and neglected to appoint the arbitrators in accordance with the arbitration agreement in existence between the parties. The said suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioners and the General manager of Western Railway, Bombay, was directed to appoint arbitrators in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the arbitrators were appointed who in their turn appointed an umpire. Since the time to make the award expired and the arbitrators failed to make their award, the Petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Umpire in accordance with the arbitration agreement which existed between the parties. Since Mr. B. R. Shetty who was then appointed as Umpire refused to act in the matter, the Petitioners filed Arbitration Petition No. 188 of 1990 for removal of Mr. Shetty as Umpire and for appointment of another person in his place under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. By order dated 11th October, 1994, passed in the said Arbitration Petition No. 188 of 1990, Mr. Shetty was removed as Umpire and the 2nd respondent, who was then the Chief Engineer (Tract Maintenance) of the Central Railway, was appointed as the Umpire in the matter. The 2nd Respondent was directed to make his award within two months from the date of entering upon the reference.