SUKLA CONSRUCTION Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

(2.) The matter relates to a work order issued to the petitioner in 1993. When the bills submitted by the petitioner could not be passed, a dispute arose and time to time correspondences were exchanged between the parties. It appears that the parties settled their dispute at the pre-arbitration stage by referring the matter to two Arbitrators nominated by each of the parties and one Presiding Arbitrator, namely, the General Manager, East Central Railway, Kolkata. Accordingly the petitioner suggested the name of one Sri A. K. Rai, Sr. DEN/3//DHN/East- ern Railway and the respondent nominated one Sri M. K. Dubey, Sr. DAO/ Eastern Railway/DHN to be appointed as Arbitrators. Sri. R. P. Kausar, Sr. DEN/2/Eastern Railway/DHN was appointed as Presiding Arbitrator.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that Sri R. P. Kausar, the Presiding Arbitrator entered the measurements in the Measurement Book and so he is not an independent Presiding Arbitrator. However, learned counsel for the parties have jointly agreed to nominate one independent person to be appointed as Presiding Arbitrator. I am also of the view that an independent person be appointed as Presiding Arbitrator.