BASUDEVA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (in short, the 'Tribunal') holding that petitioner's dispute cannot be entertained unless security deposit is made, as it cannot entertain and proceed to act on any reference unless security deposit as prescribed is furnished by the Contractor is under challenge in this writ application.

(2.) Factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows :A reference was received by the Tribunal from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the 'Act') in O.S. No. 310 of 1993-I for adjudicating disputes raised between the petitioner and the State of Orissa acting through the Executive Engineer, Badanala Irrigation Project, Badanala in the district of Rayagada. Dispute related to the work executed under Agreement No. 14 LCB of 1988-89 for execution of the word "Excavation of Badanala Main Canal from RD 7535 M to 12,000 N of Badanala Irrigation Project". Before entertaining the reference the Tribunal directed the claimant-contractor to furnish security deposit of Rs. 98,435/- in the shape of N.S.C. or Postal Savings Bank Account duly pledged in favour of the Registrar, Arbitration Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. Claimant-petitioner filed an objection stating that it was not necessary for him to furnish such deposit, as reference in his case has been made to the Tribunal under Section 20(4) of the Act in which it is to adjudicate the dispute, and cannot go beyond terms to ask for security deposit. Further stand was that Tribunal can ask for security deposit only if arbitration reference was filed by claimant directly before it. The Tribunal rejected contention holding that Rule 13(1) of the Arbitration Tribunal Rules, 1979 (in short, the 'Rules') made the position clear. Reference was also made to clause 53(f) of the Agreement, entered into between the parties. Ultimately, it was concluded that no distinction is made between dispute which was filed directly before the Tribunal and one which was referred to it by another Court.

(3.) Stand taken before the Tribunal was reiterated by learned counsel for petitioner before us. Learned counsel for State submitted that the position has been clarified by this Court in M.A. No. 255 of 1985 (Sri Gopinath Patro v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 6-12-1989) and stand of petitioner is clearly untenable.