PRABHUBHAI J RATHOD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The present petition arises from the order passed by the learned single judge of this Court on 8-7-2005 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 39 of 2005 in exercise of powers delegated to him by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator has been dismissed.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the arbitration clause between the parties required appointment of two arbitrators in case the arbitral claim exceeds rs. 3,00,000/- and that the arbitral claim put forth by the petitioner under his application under section 11 read with sections 12, 14 and 15 of the said Act filed before the learned single Judge disclosed the total claim of Rs. 5,48,680/ -. It was, therefore, necessary for the learned single Judge to appreciate that the authorities had acted illegally and in contravention of the contractual provisions while appointing sole arbitrator to deal with the arbitral claim of the petitioner and that therefore the application ought to have been allowed and the arbitrator ought to have been appointed. The learned single Judge, according to the petitioner, wrongly construed the claim of the petitioner to be for Rs. 70,000/- and being inflated by adding interest amount thereto to the tune of Rs. 4,51,680/ -. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matters of Konkan railway Corpn. Ltd. and others vs. M/s Mehul Construction Co. , reported in 2001 (1) MH. L. J. (SC) 115 = AIR 2000 SC 2821 and M/s S. B. P. and Co. vs. M/s patel Engineering Ltd. andanr. , reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5932.