PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Sub-judge 1st Class, Bhatinda dated 4th April, 1985, whereby the application for appointment of independent Arbitrator on behalf of Contractor M/s. Amar Nath Aggarwal-respondent was allowed.

(2.) According to the terms of the agreement Superintending Engineer was appointed as Arbitrator on reference by the Court. He did not give his award any time. However, undertaking was given in the court that further time be granted, but in spite of that he failed to give his award. Under these circumstance the Contractor M/s. Amar Nath Aggarwal-moved an application under Sections 5, 8, 11, 12 and 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 , for appointment of an independent Arbitrator. This application was contested on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board on the plea that already another Arbitrator i.e. the Chief Engineer had been appointed and therefore the application was not maintainable. Secondly, it was pleaded that the Superintending Engineer, Electricity, M.T.C. Circle, Bhatinda, had not become functus officio. The learned Sub Judge found that the Superintending Engineer Electricity, M.T.C. Circle who was the Arbitrator under the agreement, had become functus officio as he failed to give his award within the time allowed. It was further found that the Chief Engineer could not be appointed unless the permission of the court was sought. In view of these findings the application was allowed and an independent Arbitrator Shri B.R. Bansal, Superintending Engineer, Public Health, Bhatinda, was appointed as Arbitrator. Dissatisfied with the same, the Punjab State Electricity Board has filed this appeal in this Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this appeal. It has been held by this Court in a case reported as Girdhari Lal Bansal v. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh and others 1985 AIR(Punjab) and Haryana 219, that "it would be wrong to say that if there is a named arbitrator one of the aggrieved parties to the agreement cannot ask the Arbitrator to arbitrate or that it would be an illegal reference if the Arbitrator is satisfied that he is the Arbitrator under the agreement he will be duty bound to call upon the opposite party to file their counter-claim and then to proceed to arbitrate the matter in accordance with law. If he fails to proceed with the arbitration and allows four months' time to pass, it may be a fit case for his removal and for appointment of another Arbitrator." In these circumstances there is no force in this appeal. Consequently, the same fails and is dismissed with costs. The new Arbitratior will now proceed with the reference after notice to the parties concerned. December 11, 1986.