AMIRAJ CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I thought that charging of exorbitant remuneration by the Arbitrators was a privilege of the legal fraternity. But I find, now, that this is no longer their monopoly. Such phenomenon has now crept into Government Arbitrations. The petitioners have taken out this petition to supersedes the reference and the arbitrations, on the ground that to charge such unreasonable and exorbitant fees by the Arbitrators is per se misconduct. I am inclined to agree with the petitioners. Fortunately the petitioners have come at an initial stage, as otherwise this arbitration would have been a glaring illustration of becoming counter-productive of any meaningful result, which is wholly contrary to the object of arbitration under the Arbitration Act.

(2.) BEFORE I come to the petition I must set out the history. The petitioners were the contractors for construction of a tunnel of about 35 k.ms. In length of Warns Left Bank Canal in Sangli District. There was an agreement executed by the parties on November 10, 1981. It provided for settlement of disputes through arbitration. A dispute arose during the execution of the said contract. The petitioners appointed their Arbitrator. But the respondents would not. With the result, ultimately, the petitioners had to file a suit in this Court being Arbitration Suit No. 2693 of 1985 under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. By an order dated April 7, 1986 Mr. Justice Pendse granted a decree as prayed for and directed the respondents---State Government to appoint their arbitrators within a period of four weeks from that day and in case of failure, the Chairman of Central Water Commission, New Delhi, to appoint two Arbitrators within four weeks thereafter. He further directed that the Arbitrators, appointed by the State Government or the Chairman, should enter upon a reference along with the Arbitrator appointed by the petitioners and dispose of the claim within a period of three months from the date of entering upon the reference.

(3.) HOWEVER, during the pendency of the said petition the Arbitrators entered upon their reference and held their first meeting on December 8, 1986. The Arbitrators are respondents Nos. 2 and 3 appointed by the State Government of Maharashtra, and respondent No. 4, appointed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is an ex-member of Central Water Commission and he resides at new Delhi. Respondent No. 3 is still in Government service and is a Superintending Engineer of Kolhapur irrigation Circle.