Jawahar Jishtu vs Engineer-In-Chief, JSV & Others

@JUDGEMENTTAG- JUDGEMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

This application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of work awarded by the respondents on 22.07.2019 through agreement dt. 30th July, 2019 to the applicant. The said agreement contains the arbitration clause in Clause 25.

The applicant had served a notice on the respondents on 18.08.2022 invoking the arbitration clause and thereafter the sole Arbitrator was appointed vide Annexure P-5, who was formerly retired Superintending Engineer, but thereafter he expressed his inability on 16.08.2023 through a letter addressed to the applicant. Therefore, this application has been moved.

The respondents disputed the claim of the applicant on merits, but did not dispute the fact that the Arbitrator appointed had refused to proceed with the arbitration as is alleged by the applicant.

In this view of the matter, Shri J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate of this High Court, is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, after his disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and only after receipt thereof, shall his appointment, as an Arbitrator, come into force.

On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Shri J.S. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, shall enter into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law.

Copy of this order be forwarded to the learned counsel for the parties as also to the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled to fee as per stipulation contained in 4th Schedule appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The application is disposed of accordingly.