BHARAT COKUNG COAL LIMITED Vs. TRANSPORT INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5th of February, 1993 passed by Shri Nishikant Chaudhary, Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, 1st Court, Dhanbad, by which he has made the award dated 30.7.1992 of the sole arbitrator as the rule of the Court.

(2.) The Appellant had published a notice inviting tender bearing No. ST/1/88 dated 14.4.1988 for transportation of sand from different river ghats to East, North and South banker of the Kustore Collieries for the periods 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 It appears from the letters dated 31st March, 1988 (Annexure 'A') issued by the General Manager (S & PW) to the. Respondent that the latter was advised to transport sand at the rates agreed to between the parties for the year 1988-89. This letter also indicates that the rate for the year 1989-90 and 1990-91 were to be negotiated later. Accordingly, the Respondent continued and completed the transportation work for all the three years. It further appears that some dispute had arisen between the parties with regard to the rate of transportation for the latter two periods, namely, 1989-90 and 1990-91 and to press his demand for enhancement, the Respondent had stopped the transportation of sand which had caused safety risks of the coal mines under operation. Face to this situation, the Appellant made a lump-sum payment of Rs. 8,08,303.31 paise being 7% enhancement of the negotiated rates for resumption of transportation of sand and thereafter in order to finally resolve the dispute the parties entered into an arbitration agreement dated 4.3.1991. The material Clauses whereof read as under:

(3.) It is a matter of record that Shri B.K. Singh, Additional Secretary, Department of Coal, had refused to act as the sole Arbitrator as agreed to between the parties. Accordingly, the parties agreed in writing to appoint Sri S.N. Singh, Ex-Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coal Limited as the arbitrator. By letter dated 14.12.1991 the Chairman-cum-Managing Director referred the dispute to the said arbitrator by specifically formulating the dispute in the following terms: