PATITAPABAN MOHAPATRA Vs. S E EASTERN CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, applications under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') have been filed for appointment of Arbitrator. All these cases were heard together as it was contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no Arbitration clause whereas learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is an Arbitration Clause.

(2.) THIS batch of applications under section 11 were taken up by the Bench of Chief justice, but the learned counsel for the opposite parties in support of his contention placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Banalata Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 92 (2001) CLT 136 and contended that in the said judgment clause 11 of F2 Agreement, which is claimed to be the arbitration clause in these petitions, was interpreted in banalata Sahoo and it was held that the same is not an Arbitration Clause.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid Single Bench judgment of this Court, the Bench of the chief Justice wanted that the matter should be considered by a Division Bench since there are some judgments taking a different view. Thereafter, these matters were placed before the Division Bench and all the matters were heard together. Even though these matters were heard together in the aforesaid group of cases, the Clause, which is claimed to be the Arbitration Clause, has not been worded similarly in all the cases.