PANIHATI RUBBER LIMITED Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. A.K. Sarkar, the learned standing counsel for the Railways.

(2.) This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Act") for nomination of arbitrator in connection with the dispute arising out of the contract for manufacture and supply of grooved rubber sole plate to RDSO's Drg. No.T- 3711, for which supply order was issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2008 (page- 100), by the General Manager (Works), N.F. Railways, Maligaon. But eventually the contract was terminated by the Railways on 16.12.2010 (page-169) by imposing penalty of general damage @10% of the total cost of the undelivered materials.

(3.) Following termination of the contract, the petitioner invoked Clause 2900 (page-77) of the Standard Conditions of Contract of the Indian Railways, as made applicable through the purchase order dated 23.09.2008 and issued notice to the Railways requesting for nomination of arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The Railways belatedly reacted to the contractor's notice but in the meantime, the contractor approached the High Court on 04.04.2011.