HMT LIMITED Vs. B.K. CONSTRUCTION CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 11.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who affirmed the order dated 5.10.1993 passed by the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Chandigarh. Some facts can be mentioned in the following manner :-

(2.) WORK of shifting of Oil Storage Tank at the premises of HMT Limited, Pinjore was given to respondent No. 1-B.K. Construction Company vide order dated 24.10.1983. An agreement to this effect was entered into on 29.3.1984. The respondent-Company started execution of the contract on 15.1.1984. The total work was for about Rs. 42,875/-. The work worth Rs. 36,000/- was executed. The Construction Company allegedly failed to complete the work. Clause 30 of Schedule A was invoked in terms of the said agreement. The Construction Company vide letter dated 25.4.1988 nominated their Arbitrator and further requested the HMT to nominate their Arbitrator. HMT nominated their Arbitrator. The dispute was referred to the Joint Arbitrator of the two Arbitrators. In October, 1988, nominated Arbitrator of the HMT resigned from service and as such vacancy arose. HMT appointed a fresh Arbitrator on 9.2.1998 in place of the Arbitrator who resigned form service.

(3.) THE stand of the company is that respondent No. 2 cannot act as a sole Arbitrator. It is not the intention of the parties as per the Arbitration Clause. Rather both the parties are supposed to nominate an umpire in the event of any difference of opinion between the two Arbitrators, one appointed by the company and one by the Contractor.