Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 195 (JHR)

Indu Automobiles Through Its Partner Phool Chandra Mishra v. Managing Director, Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Bokaro Steel Plant

2005-03-09

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. I have heard Mr. G.N. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying inter alia, for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for deciding the dispute arose between the parties. 2. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass. 3. The petitioner is S.S.I. unit situated in Bokaro Industrial Area said to have been given ancillary status to Bokaro Steel Plant to cater the needs of the mother plant. The petitioner was registered for job works of the P.P.S. of Bokaro Steel Plant and it was awarded various jobs from P.P.S. of Bokaro Steel Plant on labour rates/Job rates basis. It is stated that the Bokaro Steel Plant issued materials for machining works on job rate basis. The Central Excise Department issued various letters to the petitioner for payment of Excise duty on the jobs done by it. The matter was raised with the respondent for payment of Excise duty and a meeting was held in which it was alleged to have been decided that the payment of Excise duty shall be taken care of by the Bokaro Steel Plant. The petitioners case is that despite the decision taken by the respondent, they have kept silent in the matter inspite of requests made by the petitioner. By filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the respondent now asked its officers to furnish materials relating to the demand of Excise duty for filing an appeal and as per the direction of the respondent the petitioner submitted all connecting papers to the excise consultant to B.S.L. at Kolkata for filing appeal. 4. The respondent in their counter-affidavit mainly contended that the Excise duty is payable by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner annexed copies of the job orders done by it and issued by the respondent as Annexure A-1 to the petition. In all the job orders, there is an arbitration clause which reads as under :-- "In the events of different or dispute arising out of or relating to this order either party shall have the right to refer the matter to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Managing Director of BSL. The award given by the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding for the parties. The award given by the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding for the parties. The venue of arbitration proceeding shall be B.S. City." 6. Admittedly, dispute arose with regard to payment of Excise duty for which the petitioner by invoking arbitration clause gave notice to the respondent for referring the matter to sole arbitrator, but the respondent did not respond to the said letter. 7. The question whether Excise duty is payable by the petitioner or by the respondent is a question to be decided only by the Arbitrator and not by this Court. Since the respondent failed to appoint Arbitrator, it would be appropriate for this Court to appoint an independent Arbitrator. I therefore appoint Mr. Justice P.K. Sarkar, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court, as a sole Arbitrator. He is directed to enter into the reference and give an award within four months from the date of entering into the reference. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.