BHARAT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner in terms of the Contract, as per Clause 24, the dispute in question was referred to the Adjudicator, who directed the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Jharkhand to look into the claims. It is now understood from the counter affidavit that the Chief Engineer has allowed some claims and rejected others. The decision of the Adjudicator thus rendered through the Chief Engineer was not accepted and in terms of Clause 25 of the Contract the dispute should be referred to an Arbitrator for arbitration. The defence taken in the counter affidavit is that consequent upon the direction of the Adjudicator the Chief Engineer has looked into all the claims and has rendered his decision and there is no need for appointing an Arbitrator. Since Clause 25 of the Contract contemplates arbitration in case either of the parties does not accept the decision, I find that it is a case for appointment of Arbitrator since the petitioner has not accepted the decision of the Adjudicator in a sense rendered through the Chief Engineer. Therefore, I find that it is a fit case for appointment of Arbitrator.

(3.) THE application is, accordingly, allowed .