Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 563 (GAU)

Builds Worth Private Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI)

2003-12-09

P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. P. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. In these petitions, the petitioner company M/s. Builds Worth Private Ltd. has entered in to different contracts, on different dates with M/s. Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd., Vishakhapattanam for supply of goods and in some matters for execution of works of M/s. Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that although goods were supplied as well as contract for execution of works have been completed, the petitioner has not been paid the amount which was due to them. In the contract agreement, there was an arbitration Clause provided in Article 10. In ail the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner has served notices on the respondent Company for appointment of Arbitrator on 6.4.2002, 9.5.2002, 6.4.2002 and 9.5.2002 respectively. 3. Even after service of the notices for appointment of Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, no arbitrator was appointed and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing these petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator on 22.8.2002. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings the Managing Director of the respondent Company i.e. the Respondent No. 2 has nominated Shri A. Sanjeeva Rao, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), a resident of Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh as arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes raised by the petitioner under different contract for which appointment of the Arbitrator was asked for by filing these petitions in this Court. 5. It is the settled law that if the arbitrator is not appointed within thirty days from the receipt of the notice from one party demanding appointment of arbitrator by the opposite party, and the appointment is made after the presentation of the petition, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator, it forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator as provided in the arbitration clause. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the arbitrator nominated by the Respondent Company is appointed as Arbitrator by this Court, the petitioner shall face language problem as well as problems in attending the arbitration proceedings at Vijaywada in Andhra Pradesh. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the arbitrator nominated by the Respondent Company is appointed as Arbitrator by this Court, the petitioner shall face language problem as well as problems in attending the arbitration proceedings at Vijaywada in Andhra Pradesh. 6. Considering the fact that the Arbitrator has not been appointed by the respondent Company exercising the powers within the stipulated period, as provided under the arbitration clause in the contract agreement, this Court gets jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. Accordingly, I appoint Mr. Justice D.N. Choudhury, a retired judge of the Gauhati High Court to adjudicate upon the disputes in all these petitions as an Arbitrator. The parties shall settle the Arbitrator's terms and conditions. 7. Petitions stand disposed of.