LAWS(GAU)-2016-6-87

SPML INFRA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Decided On June 10, 2016
SPML INFRA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Ms. Geeta Deka, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State Respondents No. 1 to 3.

(2.) The petitioner, herein, being found an eligible tenderer, for construction of 3 x 2000 KW MHP in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, tender was awarded in favour of the petitioner and in pursuant to the formal acceptance by the petitioner, an Agreement was executed between the parties as on 18.03.1993.

(3.) Owing to some dispute between the parties, regarding noncompletion of the project and non-release of the mobilization advance, etc., to the petitioner; on an earlier occasion, the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid clause of arbitration, issued letter to the respondent, in the year 2001, but as the respondent did not respond to the same, so the petitioner preferred an application before this Court u/s. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute, that has arisen between the parties, which was registered as Arb. Case No. 21/2001, and this Court, upon hearing the parties, vide order dated 07.12.2001, was pleased to appoint Honourable Late Mr. Justice R. K. Manisena Singh, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that arose between the parties. But prior to conclusion of such arbitration proceeding, Honourable Justice, above mentioned, passed away, as on 08.01.2015. Hence, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities to resolve the issue, however, this time also, the petitioner failed to receive any positive response from the authorities concerned. By letter dated 17.07.2015, the respondent authorities denied the dispute and further declined to refer the matter for arbitration, for which, the petitioner has approached this Court, again, for appointment of a substitute arbitrator to decide the dispute that has arisen between the parties.