JIMMY CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the original applicant to the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which came to be rejected by the District Judge.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under -The appellant/applicant is a Contractor while respondent/n. A. 1 is Indian railway. Non-applicants No. 2 to 4 are the Arbitrators. Non-applicant No. 1 invited tenders for Gauge Conversion of Railway Line running between Gondia and Jabalpur. The tender cost was Rs. 33,87,212/ -. The tender of the applicant was accepted. The work was to be completed within period of twelve months from 31-12-1999 and the agreement was executed on 1-4-1999. The agreement provides that if a dispute arises between the parties, it will be referred to the arbitrators. It is the allegation of the applicant/appellant that due to the hindrance caused by the officials of non-applicant No. 1, there was a delay in completion of the work. However, the time was extended up to 31-12-2001. The applicant could complete the work worth Rs. 8,76,6317 -. Thereafter, it is alleged that non-applicant No. 1 refused permission to applicant No. 1 to commence the work of the second phase. Due to the stiff hike in the diesel prices and royalty charges, the applicant had made a request to revise the rates. The said request was rejected. The final bills were not prepared by non-applicant No. 1. The matter, therefore, was referred to the Arbitrators and non-applicant No. 1 appointed arbitrators in the matter. The Arbitrators did not commence the work for a period of twenty months. As a result, the applicant was required to move the High Court for appointment of other Arbitrators. While the application was pending before the High Court, non-applicants No. 2 to 4 resumed hearing of the Arbitration. The applicant, however, informed them that the matter is pending before the high Court and therefore, the proceedings should be kept in abeyance. It is contended that in haste the proceedings were completed and the award has been passed. The applicant contends that the constitution of the arbitral itself was not in accordance with the law and the applicant has not been given any opportunity to participate in the arbitration proceedings. It is contended that false statements were made before the High Court by the Railway authorities and therefore, the award was liable to be set aside.

(3.) Non-applicant No. 1 filed reply to the application and denied all allegations made against it. It denies that any haste was made by the Arbitrators in concluding the proceedings. It is contention of the non-applicant that the applicant had left the place of meeting stating that he would come within ten minutes but did not turn up and intentionally remained absent.