ANISH D SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Since the factual position in these two Writ Petitions and two Arbitration Applications is same, all the Writ Petitions and Arbitration Applications are heard and disposed of by Common Judgment. The parties would be referred to as they are stated in the Writ Petition.

(3.) Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") was awarded certain works of construction on Pohner Branch Canal of Majalgaon Right Bank Canal by the present Petitioner. Accordingly an agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is the case of the Respondent that there arose dispute between the Respondent and the Petitioner in respect of settlement of the said bills and accordingly the Respondent addressed a communication dated 1/12/2000 to the Executive Engineer of the Petitioner seeking redressal of his claims, in view of Clause 52 of the agreement entered into between the parties. Vide communication dated 16/11/2002 the Chief Engineer of the Petitioner finally rejected the claim of the Respondent. The Respondent accordingly issued a notice dated 30/10/2002 to the Chief Engineer, conveying him the intention of the Respondent to invoke Clause 53 of the agreement i.e. Arbitration Clause and requested him to send a panel of three officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer or above. Since there was no response from the Petitioner, the Respondent addressed a reminder dated 6/12/2002. However, the Chief Engineer vide his communication dated 16/12/2002, refused to send panel of Arbitrator. The Respondent accordingly vide his communication dated 30/12/2002 sent names of three officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer. On 20/1/2003 since the Chief Engineer failed to communicate acceptance of any of the names forwarded by the Respondent to be appointed as an Arbitrator, the Respondent appointed one Shri K.A. Grampurohit (Retired Superintending Engineer) as a sole Arbitrator. On 23/1/2003 the Arbitrator issued notice of preliminary meeting. On 31/1/2003 the Petitioner appeared before the said Arbitrator Shri K.A. Grampurohit and challenged his appointment on account of his qualification and apprehension of bias. On 12/2/2003 the Sole Arbitrator in view of the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Arbitration Act, rejected the challenge of the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter filed M.A.R.J.I. No.72 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Beed challenging the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 14(2) read with Section 12(3)(a) and (b) and Section 16 of the said Act on the ground of qualification and apprehension of bias. Due to certain difficulties on account of ill health and financial difficulties, the Respondent could not file his Statement of Claim and as such the Arbitrator terminated the Arbitration Proceedings under Section 25(a) of the said Act on 23/3/2003.