A B SINGH Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, since the same question was involved and the parties were the same, A.A. No. 28 of 2003 was also brought up to be heard and disposed of along with these cases.

(2.) These applications are under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the petitioner, Clause 95 of the contract provided for arbitration and though the petitioner raised the claim for arbitration as envisaged by Clause 95 of the contract, the respondents did not respond or make a reference as contemplated and consequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court. In the counter affidavit, originally filed, the respondents submitted that attempts were being made to settle the dispute. Subsequently, it was submitted that the matter could not be settled and consequently the respondents are ready to appoint Director Technical, Project & Planning Division, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, who had no connection with the present work, as the Arbitrator.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents should not be permitted to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 95, since they had lost the right to name the Arbitrator in view of the fact that the respondents did not respond on demand being made or make a reference as contemplated and hence it was for this Court to appoint an Arbitrator. Counsel submitted that pending the proceedings, some penalty has been imposed, which created an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that unless there is an independent Arbitrator appointed, he may not get justice. This submission of the petitioner is sought to be met by counsel for the respondents by pointing out that in terms of Clause -95, the matter had to be referred to the Director Technical, Project & Planning Division, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi for decision and that is what is proposed to be done by the respondents. There is no room for any apprehension in the mind of petitioner. It is also pointed out that the respondents have themselves raised a counter claim against the petitioner.