UNION OF INDIA Vs. VENGAMAMABA ENGINEERING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To what extent a Writ Petition would be maintainable against an order passed by the Chief Justice or the nominee of the Chief Justice appointing an arbitrator in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is the question involved in all these writ applications.

(2.) Before adverting to the question, we may briefly state few facts leading to the filing of these petitions; South Central Railway, Secunderabad is the petitioner in all these writ petitions. It entered into various agreements with the contractors for execution of certain works. In W.P. No. 931 of 2000, the respondent had entered into five agreements separately with the petitioner on 11-3-1996,12-3-1996, 29-6-1994 and 8-8-1994 for different works at different places coming under the Vijayawada Division and the works were executed separately. The 1st respondent made claim on 26-4-1997. One Sri K. Venkateswararao, Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction)/Works, Secunderabad was appointed as the sole arbitrator on 27-5-1999 for adjudication of the dispute as per the terms and conditions of the Contract special conditions and General Conditions of Contract (GCC). The respondent filed a single arbitration application being A. A. 71 of 1999 for appointment of a sole arbitrator on 22-12-1999 and this Court by order dated 25-9-2000 appointed sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute. The petitioners claim that a single application for all the agreements is not maintainable as per Clauses 63 and 64 of GCC as the agreements were entered into for different works at different places. According to the 1st respondent, he made representation to refer the left over claims to the arbitrator by letter dated 24-7-1999, but the same was rejected. Even the appointed arbitrator did not enter into reference.

(3.) In W.P. No. 1063 of 2001, the 1st respondent had entered into an agreement with the petitioners for construction of staff quarters for the railway employees on 10/15-11-1998 for Rs. 20.37 lakhs within a period of nine months and the period was extended upto 31-3-1999. The work was completed and handed over to the railways after a delay of 19 months. There was a subsidiary agreement between the parties for certain additional works, 1st respondent filed W.P.No.4172 of 1992 and this Court by order dated 22-6-1992 directed to pay the undisputed amount within two weeks and as regards the disputed amount a Review Committee was directed to be appointed with a further direction that if the result thereof is not acceptable, the party shall go for arbitration. The Review Committee made certain recommendations. There was no indication from the 1st respondent that the recommendations are not acceptable to him. He filed A.A. No. 12 of 1999 for appointment of a sole arbitrator which was disposed by this Court on 6-12-2000 appointing a sole arbitrator. It was contended that the arbitration application did not satisfy the requirements of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act and it was barred by limitation. The application was also not maintainable under the Act as the contract was entered into under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940.