ADARSH CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER, BATHINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, I shall dispose of Civil Revisions No. 786 and 787 of 1999 titled as M/s. Adarsh Construction Co. v. Chief Engineer, Bathinda and others and M/s. Om Construction Co. v. Chief Engineer, Bathinda and others respectively. Both the revisions have arisen from the order dated 13.10.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Chandigarh, who thought it proper not to extend the time of the Arbitrator Brig. M.M.S. Nanda and, thus, rejected the request of the contractor. In the same breath, the learned trial Court allowed the application of the Government of India and removed Brig.M.M.S. Nanda from the Arbitratorship and appointed Brig.T.K. Mittal as a new Arbitrator in place of Brig. M.M.S. Nanda

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner:- The dispute arose between the parties with regard to the execution of the work and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator Brig. M.M.S. Nanda. Again it was referred to Mr. Y.N. Rao, Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone, Delhi, thereafter to Brig. M.M.S. Nanda, who entered upon the reference and whose appointment was made on 7.12.1996. Brig. M.M.S. Nanda retired on 31.12.1997. When the matter was pending before Brig. M.M.S. Nanda for adjudication, he sought two extensions under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act and those extensions were granted. As per the extensions, Brig. M.M.S. Nanda was supposed to give the award on or before 31.11.1997. Brig. M.M.S. Nanda retired on 31.12.1997 and ceased to hold the post of Chief Engineer. The argument provides as follows :-

(3.) MEETING with the arguments of the counsel opposite, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Raman Mahajan submits that once the parties to the Arbitrator had submitted before the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator Brig. M.M.S. Nanda, it is not fair for the Court concerned to remove the authority of Brig. M.M.S. Nanda and appoint a fresh Arbitrator. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. In my opinion, this petition deserves to be dismissed. If I revert to the Arbitration clause, it clearly stipulates that if the Arbitrator vacates his office, a fresh Arbitrator can be appointed in his place. Conduct of Brig. M.M.S. Nanda is not upto the mark. Two extensions were given and inspite of the two extensions, he has not been able to pronounce the award. In this view of the matter, I do not see any illegality in the order dated 13.10.1998. Resultantly, both the revisions are dismissed with the observations and directions to the Arbitrator Brig. T.K. Mittal to give the award expeditiously and he shall also adopt the previous proceedings conducted by Brig. M.M.S. Nanda. He shall also visit the site before adjudicating the controversy between the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the new Arbitrator on 26.2.2001. Copy of the order be given dasti for compliance. Revisions dismissed.