VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh, who dismissed the application of the petitioners under Section 41(b) read with Schedule (2), Rule 4 of the Arbitration Act further read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for staying the proceedings before the arbitrator Brig. R.R. Singh.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Shri Vishnu Kumar Gupta was registered as class-S contractor with MES and had been executing various construction contracts with the MES for the last 25 years. After his death in July, 1991, the firm is being represented by the LRs of Vishnu Kumar Gupta in all the proceedings. The petitioners had entered into a contract with the respondents for the work of provisions of RCC structures and concrete pavement at Srinagar and an agreement was entered into between the parties. The work was completed to the entire satisfaction of the respondents and subsequently dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the arbitrator as per Clause 70 of the agreement. Earlier respondent No. 3 appointed Major Gen. W.S. Chona as sole arbitrator for adjudication of dispute between the parties. Major Gen. Chona resigned and then Sh. S.K. Rao was appointed as sole arbitrator on 30.3.1994. Being aggrieved by the appointment of Shri Rao as sole arbitrator, the petitioners filed a petition under Sections 8, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh and during the pendency of the said petition Shri S.K. Rao resigned and the counsel for the respondents made a statement dated 17.4.1997 that another arbitrator in place of Shri Rao would be appointed within 15 days. Upon this the petition was withdrawn. No appointment was made within the period of 15 days as promised by the counsel for the respondents. Thereafter the petitioners filed a petition under Sections 8 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator. During the pendency of said petition, on 2.8.1997 respondent No. 3 appointed Brig. T.K. Mittal as sole arbitrator and the petition of the petitioners was dismissed on 12.9.1997 by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh upon the statement of the counsel for the respondents. A review application was moved by the petitioners and it was inter alia pleaded that since the new arbitrator was not appointed within a period of 15 days, as such the respondents have lost their right to appoint Brig. T.K. Mittal as sole arbitrator and thus the appointment of Brig. Mittal is bad in the eyes of law. It was further pleaded by the petitioners that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as sole arbitrator is bad because the arbitrator was supposed to complete the arbitration proceedings within six months and the said period of six months has already expired. The maximum period could be extended upto one year with mutual consent of the parties. As no decision has been given by the sole arbitrator, therefore, the authority of the arbitrator should be revoked and in place of the sole arbitrator a fresh arbitrator may be appointed by the Court who may be acceptable to both the parties. 2A. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, Shri S.K. Rao was earlier appointed as sole arbitrator. Thereafter, within a period of 15 days Brig. T.K. Mittal was appointed as sole arbitrator in compliance with the arbitration clause No. 70. Then Brig. R.R. Singh was appointed as sole arbitrator on 22.9.2000. The application moved by the petitioner for the removal of sole arbitrator is misconceived.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present revision.