Bharat Mishra vs State of Jharkhand and Others

P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.—This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

According to the petitioner in terms of the Contract, as per Clause 24, the dispute in question was referred to the Adjudicator, who directed the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Jharkhand to look into the claims. It is now understood from the counter affidavit that the Chief Engineer has allowed some claims and rejected others. The decision of the Adjudicator thus rendered through the Chief Engineer was not accepted and in terms of Clause 25 of the Contract the dispute should be referred to an Arbitrator for arbitration. The defence taken in the counter affidavit is that consequent upon the direction of the Adjudicator the Chief Engineer has looked into all the claims and has rendered his decision and there is no need for appointing an Arbitrator. Since Clause 25 of the Contract contemplates arbitration in case either of the parties does not accept the decision, I find that it is a case for appointment of Arbitrator since the petitioner has not accepted the decision of the Adjudicator in a sense rendered through the Chief Engineer. Therefore, I find that it is a fit case for appointment of Arbitrator.

I, therefore, appoint Mr. Justice Anand Prasad Sinha, former Judge of the Patna High Court, from the Panels of the Arbitrators, as the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute in question. The parties shall file their respective claims, defences and counter claims, if any, before the Arbitrator, who will look into all pleas and render his decision. The Arbitrator will be free to fix his terms in consultation with the parties. The Arbitrator will enter upon the reference without delay and try to complete the arbitration proceedings and deliver his Award within nine months from the date of entering upon the arbitration.

The application is, accordingly, allowed .