M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) An agreement was executed between the parties on 6-10-2003 for rehabilitation of sheer bridge. A dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner made a request on 21-4-2004 to constitute an arbitral tribunal. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. Thereupon, the General Manager, West Central Railway vide letter dated 30-6-2006 appointed an arbitral tribunal consisting of two arbitrators and one presiding arbitrator as provided under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of the contract. The arbitral tribunal held four meetings between 24-10-2007 to 8-8-2008. The General Manager of the West Central Railway vide letter dated 6-9-2010 constituted presiding officer and appointed one H. Godbole as presiding officer. Thereafter the presiding arbitrator was changed thrice and co-arbitrators were changed four times by the General Manager, West Central Railway. The petitioner on 29-7-2010 made a request to appoint arbitral tribunal. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under section 11(6) of the Act on 22-3-2013 for constitution of the arbitral tribunal. On 24-7-2013, one Smt. Anuradha Mukhedkar who was presiding officer was transferred to Kota. Admittedly no presiding officer has been appointed in her place till today. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel submitted that at present there is no presiding officer and the respondent has forfeited its right to constitute the arbitral tribunal in view of their inaction. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s Deep Trading Company v. Indian Oil Corporation, 2013 AIR(SC) 1479 and M/s Vidyawati Construction Co. v. M/s Rail India Tech. and ECO. Services Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 14647-14648/2001 decided on 19-11-2001 as well as decision of the Madras High Court in A. Chockalingam v. Union of India, 2015 AIR(Mad) 153.