GOYEL BROTHERS GHATSILA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN the instant request petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioner has prayed for appointment of an independent person as an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arose out of a contract.

(3.) PETITIONER 's further case is that being dissatisfied with the decision of Superintending Engineer, petitioner vide letter dated 29.2.1996 and 23.3.1996 made reference to the concerned Chief Engineer of the respondents for arbitration in terms of Clause 52 of the Contract. However, the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 2.4.1996 furnished a panel of 3 (three) persons for selection of an Arbitrator for deciding only some of the disputes and also counter claim of the respondents. One Mr. Gagan, Director, Hydrology Water resources Department was appointed Arbitrator but he by letter dated 16.4.1996 expressed his inability to accept the appointment as sole arbitrator. Petitioner, thereafter, vide letter dated 28.4.1996 requested the Chief Engineer to furnish a fresh panel for appointment of Arbitrator but latter did not agree to the same.