PARMANAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the Arbitration applications have been filed by the same applicant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") seeking appointment of an Arbitrator relying upon the same Clause 24 of the agreements executed between the parties, in respect of the various work orders and hence all are decided by this common order.

(2.) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents Dr. A.S. Khangarot has raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of these applications by relying upon the decision of this Court in case of M/s. Mohammad Arif Contractor versus State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 08.04.2015 (S.B. Arbitration Application No. 90/2012) by submitting that clause -23 of the agreement in the said case, which is similar to clause -24 of the agreement in the present cases, has been held to be not an arbitration clause. He further submitted that so far as the present cases are concerned, there is a specific bar against referring the disputes to the arbitration as contained in clause 25 of the agreement, and therefore also the applications are not maintainable. However, the learned counsel Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal for the applicant relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Surya Construction Company Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr., : 2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 418 submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the said clauses 24 and 25 of the agreement in question, has appointed the arbitrator and that if this Court does not agree with the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the matter be referred to the Division Bench in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others versus Prahlad Hiranand Advani and others, : AIR 1995 SC 1893.

(3.) FROM the bare reading of the said clauses, it clearly appears that Clause 24 provides for the dispute redressal system, whereby the dispute first has to be referred to the competent authority and then to the Empowered Standing Committee. It further provides that the decision of said committee would be binding on the employer, however if the contractor does not accept such decision of the said committee, he would be free to approach the courts applicable under the law. It is further to be noted that the clause -25 clearly states that there will be no arbitration for the settlement of any dispute between the parties. Thus, such clauses could not, by any stretch of imagination be treated as the arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the said Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that this Court in case of M/s. Mohammed Arif (supra) while interpreting similar clause as clause 24 has held that such clause could not be treated as the arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the said Act. The relevant observations of the said decision are reproduced as under: -