Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 54 (PAT)

M/s Prasad Construction & Co. v. Union Of India

2009-01-16

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an independent Arbitrator for settlement of dispute between the parties in a short span of time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent-Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), East Central Railway. Patna for construction of major bridges of various spans with specifications on 20.1.2003. but in course of construction disputes arose between them. On 20.11.2005, the petitioner submitted its claim to the railways. As per the terms of the contract, disputes were to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of three Arbitrators, one nominated by each of the parties and the third nominated by the two earlier nominated Arbitrators and for that purpose the Chief Administrative Officer, East Central Railway sent a panel of four names of Railway Officers to the petitioner on 19.2.2007, whereafter the petitioner sent its letter dated 10.3.2007 agreeing to two names. 3. It is also stated on 9.4.2007, the Railway constituted Arbitral Tribunal, but the arbitration proceeding did not start and hence on 17.10.2007, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for starting the proceeding, but it was not started even after the letter dated 22.10.2007 sent by the Deputy General Manager of the Railway. It is also stated that on 31.3.2008 and 31.5.2008, the petitioner wrote letters to the tribunal to start the proceeding, but when it was not started, the petitioner wrote to the General Manager on 31.7.2008 stating that the proceeding should immediately start otherwise he would be constrained to move the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that when no step was taken in that regard, the petitioner had no option but to file the instant request case on 14.11.2008. 4. Although the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is quite apparent from the records of the case that no proper steps have been taken by the Tribunal when the petitioner had been regularly approaching it and in the meantime two of the Arbitrators have already been transferred. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the matter is unnecessarily being delayed and apprehensions of the petitioner are justified. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circum stances, as prayed for, Mr. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the matter is unnecessarily being delayed and apprehensions of the petitioner are justified. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circum stances, as prayed for, Mr. Justice Syed Mohammad Mahfooz Alam, a retired Judge of this court, is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in question between the parties. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to adopt the procedure to be gone into during the arbitral proceeding in accordance with law, as also to fix his remuneration. The parties are directed to appear before the said learned Arbitrator at his residence within a month from today alongwith a copy of this order. The respondents will be at liberty to raise their objections before the said Arbitrator. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this request case is disposed of.