BKB TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., BOKARO THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED, RANCHI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Both these applications are preferred by the same petitioner against the same respondent seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 95 of the respective agreements. Clause 95 is in the same language in both the agreements in the two Arbitration Applications, first dated 17.12.2003 (in Arbitration Application No.34 of 2007) relating to award of the work of loading of coal into Railway wagons at Jarangdih Railway Siding and the second dated 9.11.2001(in Arbitration Application No.35 of 2007) relating to work of transportation of crushed coal from Jarangdih F.B. to Jarangdih Railway Siding PF No.-II.

(3.) Petitioner raised the dispute and sought appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 95 of both the agreements through notices dated 12.2.2007. Having failed to elicit any response, they have sought for appointment of an Arbitrator separately under both the agreements under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the arbitration clause 95 the dispute arising out of a contract shall be referred to Director and the decision of the Director would be final and binding on the contractor. He submits that instant clause should be read as arbitration clause.