V KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. AIRPORT DIRECTOR JAIPUR AIRPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. application has been filed by Director, Jaipur Airport, Airport Authority of India, Jaipur (for short-'AAI') inter alia with the prayer for recall/review of the order of this Court dated 8.9.2017.

(2.) This Court by the aforesaid order allowed the application filed by the original applicant-Mr. V. Krishnamurthy under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of his disputes with the AAI. The Court while allowing the application came to the conclusion that the disputed involved in the said application was "whether the respondents could have, having extended the license period in favour of the petitioner from time to time in different phases up to 03.06.2014, unilaterally increased the license fee and if so, at what rates." and whether the original applicant has paid excess amount of Rs.19, 59, 377 upto February and March, 2016. The argument on behalf of AAI resisting the application was that the outstanding amount demanded in terms of the modified award dated 04.07.2014 as well as dated 13.08.2015 was Rs.3, 97, 89, 439/-. It was denied that any excess payment was made by the original applicant to the AAI and that the AAI vide letter dated 110.2015 called upon the original applicant to deposit the outstanding dues amounting to Rs.1, 44, 00, 608/-, which was calculated in terms of the modified award dated 04.07.2014 as well as the award dated 13.08.2015. The total amount computed on that basis was Rs.3, 97, 89, 439/-. This Court has held that so far as earlier disputes between the parties are concerned, they have already been crystallized in the award passed earlier on 17.11.2011 and the present dispute falls outside their scope.

(3.) Shri Sudhanshu Kasliwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the AAI submits that this Court has failed to appreciate that by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute related to license fee payable, this court has in effect appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute which has already been settled by a sole arbitrator vide his awards dated 04.07.2014 and 108.2015. Once the award earlier passed attained finality, the same issue cannot be permitted to be adjudicated by any party by way of any second round of arbitration proceedings, the arbitration agreement having seized to exist. It is argued that the appointment made ignoring objection raised that there was no dispute to be referred to arbitrator in view of full and final settlement between the parties is unsustainable. The original application had raised the second dispute related to applicability of Escalation Clause of 10% every year stipulated in the license agreement, which issue has already been decided by the sole arbitrator vide its order dated 108.2015.