STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge which interferred with an order dtd. 12/3/2015, leading to the cancellation of the contract and the show cause notice dtd. 4/2/2016 issued for blacklisting. The parties were permitted to take recourse before the Bihar State Public Works Arbitration Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' in short). The petitioner also had raised the contention regarding inability to continue with the work, if the recovery of Rs.3.00Crores threatened by the respondent department is made. On the request of the petitioner the learned Single Judge directed furnishing of bank guarantee for the said amount and also permitted the petitioner to raise the issue before the Tribunal. The respondent had taken the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Arbitral Tribunal was found to have no jurisdiction and hence a Request Case was filed by the appellant and an Arbitrator was appointed. The term of the Arbitrator had expired and once it was extended. As of now the extended period also has expired and there is a further application filed before the Principal District Court of original jurisdiction in the State of Bihar.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is confusion as to whether the extension of time has to be granted by the Civil Court having original jurisdiction as defined under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by the High Court when the Arbitrator was appointed under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(3.) The learned AAG appearing for the appellants would on the other hand contend that the blacklisting is not an issue that could be considered by the Arbitrator and it is also submitted that when the Arbitrator has been appointed under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has to necessarily move before the High Court as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for extension of time.