C. Purushothama Raju vs Central Power Research Institute, Bengaluru

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short �the Act�) for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute which has arisen in relation to the agreement at Annexure-B dated 9.3.2012.

The petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 48611/2013 against the respondent challenging the termination of the aforesaid agreement by the respondent. This Court has disposed of the writ petition by order dated 15.7.2014 holding as under:

"In the instant case, dispute is over termination of the contract by an order Annexure-B and therefore petitioner must stand relegated to have his dispute redressed in terms of clause-25."

It is evident from the aforesaid order that the parties were relegated to arbitration having regard to Clause 25 contained in the agreement at Annexure-B. Thereafter, petitioner sent a letter at Annexure-E dated 22.7.2014 giving certain suggestions for settlement of the matter. Again, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.44790/2014 for quashing a tender notification dated 11.9.2014 issued by the respondent inviting tenders from the eligible contractors to do the balance of the work. This Court by order dated 3.8.2015 has disposed of the matter by observing that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondent based on the measurements, he can still avail the remedy seeking resolution of the dispute by arbitration. Thereafter, the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner at Annexure-F dated 7.9.2015 informing the summary of the third and final bill. In response to the said letter, petitioner sent a notice as per Annexure-G dated: 15.9.2015 stating as under:

"In these circumstances, I have been given the remedy of seeking resolution of the dispute by the Arbitration and now that as your order has become a dispute, this dispute needs to be settled through Arbitration only in accordance with the order of the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka. Therefore, your present action totally violates the order passed by the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka. It is therefore necessary that Arbitration process has to be invoked wherein all the disputes are to be settled. Till such time the dispute is settled through Arbitration, you cannot take any unilateral action, as is now being resorted by you."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

In the last paragraph of the notice, the petitioner has stated as under:

"Under the said circumstances and also according to the order of the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka, the disputes will be referred to Arbitration tor settlement at an appropriate time as said above as per the order of the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

In response to the said notice, the respondent has sent a letter at Annexure-H dated 12.10.2015 informing the petitioner that the Director General, CPRI has approved appointment of Shri. P. Ravindranathan, Retired Additional Director General, Central Public Works Department, IF Raxton 205, Elan Homes, Survey Nos. 15 & 23. Sarjapur Road. Opp: Total Mall. Bangalore-560 035 as the sole arbitrator to decide and make his award regarding claims and disputes. The petitioner has sent a notice as per Annexure-H1 dated 28.10.2015 requesting the respondent to intimate under which provisions the appointment of the arbitrator has been made. The respondent has sent a notice as per Annexure-H2 dated: 12.11.2015 reiterating that the Director General, CPRI has approved appointment of Shri. P. Ravindranathan. Retired Additional Director General, Central Public Works Department, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and claims.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of an arbitrator by the respondent is not in accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement. Secondly, it is contended that the Chief Engineer in-charge of the respondent has no authority to appoint an arbitrator.

On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that in response to the demand made by the petitioner in his letter at Anncxure-G dated: 15.9.2015, an arbitrator has already been appointed as per the agreed procedure in the agreement within a period of 30 days from the date of demand.

I have carefully considered the arguments made at Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

Clause 25 of the agreement at Annexure-B provides for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. It is not in dispute that dispute has arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement at Annexure-B. The question is whether the arbitrator has been appointed as per the agreed procedure in the agreement?

In W.P. No. 48611/2013 filed by the petitioner challenging the termination of the contract, this Court relegated the parties to redress the dispute in terms of Clause 25 of the agreement. This order is dated: 15.7.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent a letter as per Annexure-E dated 22.07.2014 giving certain suggestions for settlement of claims. This was followed by yet another order in W.P. No. 44790/2014, wherein this Court observed that petitioner can still avail remedy of seeking resolution of the dispute by arbitration. The respondent by its communication at Annexure-F dated:7.9.2015 informed the petitioner the summary of third and final bill enclosing copy of the said bills. The petitioner sent a notice as per Annexure-G dated 15.9.2015 stating that the dispute needs to be settled in terms of the arbitration clause. In response to the letter at Anncxure-G, the respondent has appointed an arbitrator which was informed to the petitioner by communication at Annexure-H dated 12.10.2015. Therefore, within a period of 30 days from the date of the demand at Annexure-G, an arbitrator has been appointed as per the agreed procedure in the contract.

Perusal of the communication at Annexure-H clearly indicates that the Director General, CPRI has approved appointment of Shri. P. Ravindranathan, Retired Additional Director General, Central Public Works Department, as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. I am of the opinion that appointment of Arbitrator is perfectly in accordance with the agreed procedure. Therefore, question of appointing an Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) does not arise. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.