TRAFALGAR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of this writ petition, which was raised by the learned counsel for the opposite. party no.1.

(2.) Facts involved in the present case in short are that an agreement dated 6.4.1995 was entered into between the opp. party no. 1 and the petitioner no.1 for execution of the work, namely, "Construction and completion of works (i) Head Race Tunnel (HRT) and, (ii) Muran Massonary Dam of Upper Indravati Hydro-Electric Project" .Subsequently, two supplementary agreements were executed on 18.5.1998 in between the parties. As a dispute between the parties arose, the petitioner no. 1 filed OJC No. 4692 of 2000 to stall encashment of Bank Guarantee given by it. In the said writ petition, initially, a stay order was passed which continued till 14.9.1997 when the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. It is stated that the petitioner no. 1 thereafter filed a S.L.P. challenging the order passed by this Court and obtained an order of stay from the Hon'ble apex Court which is still continuing and the S.L.P. is still pending. The opp. party no. 1 vide letter dated 23.06.2003 invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement and nominated the opp. party no. 4 as their chosen arbitrator and requested the petitioner no. 1 to appoint an Arbitrator from their side. The petitioner no. 1 suggested the name of opp. party no. 2 as their nominated Arbitrator. The opp. party no. 3 was then appointed by the President, Institute of Engineers India as per the terms of the agreement as the Presiding Arbitrator.

(3.) Before the Arbitration Tribunal, a number of sittings have been held after filing of the claim and counter claim etc. by the parties. After completion of the pleadings, the Arbitration Tribunal formulated eight issues, which were subsequently enhanced to twenty four issues. When the matter was at the stage of argument and the parties were advancing their arguments, an application was filed by the opp. party no. 1 under section 16 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') raising jurisdictional issue. Objection was filed to the said application by the petitioner no.1. On 5.12.2005, the Tribunal passed an order on the application under section 16 (3) of the Act filed by the opp. party no.1, the relevant portion of which is as follows:-