M/s. S.R. Engineering Construction vs Union of India and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

CM-23163-2013:

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM-23162-2013:

Leave is granted to respondents to place the reply on record and the application is allowed.

ARB-140-2013:

The petitioner finds himself in an unfortunate predicament where the disputes raised by him for resolution through the mode of arbitration do not stand resolved since the last 13 years during which period of time eight persons have been appointed as Arbitrators by the respondents. If one may say, the very objective of an expeditious resolution of dispute through the mode of arbitration is sought to be defeated by the respondents by the manner in which these arbitration proceedings are stated to be carried on. The grave injustice being made to petitioner is also on account of the fact that the pendency of arbitration is being taken as an excuse by the respondents to deny any further contracts to the petitioner.

The petitioner was awarded the contract for carrying out construction of the Technical Building and Allied Services at a contract value of Rs. 15,38,439.98 in pursuance to a contract accepted on 30.7.1992. Certain disputes arose inter se the parties and in view of Clause-70 being arbitration clause, the petitioner invoked the same and the first Arbitrator appointed entered upon reference in the year 2001. Thereafter, there has been a saga of eight Arbitrators appointed and the reason stated by learned counsel for the respondents is that as per the arbitration clause, there was requirement of having a serving officer and as and when officers retired or were posted outstation, a new Arbitrator used to be appointed.

The aforesaid is a completely unsatisfactory situation as arbitration proceedings must conclude expeditiously. The last such Arbitrator appointed Shri R.S. Bhandari resigned on 31.7.2013. As per the respondents, the new Arbitrator was appointed on 30.10.2013, i.e., after three months.

Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to submit that only final arguments have to take place and the pleadings are complete. The partner of the petitioner appearing submits that this position has been prevailing since the sixth Arbitrator, but there has been no conclusion.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case where this Court should appoint an Arbitrator to ensure the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings as the petitioner cannot be made to wait indefinitely to see the result of the arbitration.

It is pointed out that a retired Engineer from the Army itself, namely, Col. Manoranjan Goswami (Retd.) is a Member of the Indian Council of Arbitration and would be able to perform the function of an Arbitrator which is technical in nature.

I, therefore, consider it appropriate to appoint him as the sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. The fee of the Arbitrator will be as per the schedule of fee of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Disposed of accordingly.