RABINDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Arbitration Application has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator under Sub -Section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) Counsel for the applicant submitted that initially for the construction of canal, contract was entered into between the parties to this Arbitration Application on 26th October, 1987. For the paucity of fund, etc, the said contract came to an end in November, 1991 as stated in paragraph 5 of this memo of Arbitration Application. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that after few years, another contract was entered into between the parties on 12th March, 2007. Thus, after more than 16 years, second contract was entered into, but, in the previous contract, there was Clause No.23 for arbitration, whereas, in the second contract, there was no arbitration clause, nonetheless, if any dispute is arising out between the parties to the second agreement also, Arbitrator can be appointed and the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Arbitration Application No.42 of 2007 dated 13th May, 2016 and the judgment delivered by this Court reported in (2005)(1) JLJR 162 (Paragraphs 7 and 19).

(3.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that the first contract, which was entered into dated 26th October, 1987 has been brought to an end in the year 1991. Thereafter, a period of more than one and a half decade has been over and in the year 2007, another contract was entered into between the very same parties, in which there is no arbitration clause and, hence, no Arbitrator can be appointed for the disputes between the parties in the second agreement and the previous two judgments sited by the counsel for the applicant are also not applicable looking to the facts of this case and, hence, this Arbitration Application may not be entertained by this Court.