•S^ ^|^t|0^ v. RE8 PUNDENT Star Ferro AUoys Pvt

Shri Anaad Tiwati, Shri Ashish Shritastava, i, Advocate for fhe appUcao.t. Advocate for the non-applicaiit. IO^RDJER 13.04.2007 Per Dliirendra Mishra. J. The appUcant has pr^ 11(6) of the Arbitration heremafter referred to as fffhe| rferred tiiis appUcation under Section a^id Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short |ActB?) for appoiatnient of arbitrator. v^

2. The case of flie appUc|aiit is that the appUcaat and the non applicaiit entercd mto aa a^reeHient on 11,04.2003 at Baradwar, Distt, Jaajgir-Chainpa for t4e traasportation and marketj|ng work providiag labour, Diachiaeries, terms aad of Dolomite as per conditions raentioned ui Anriexi ixijexure A-l. Clause-11 of ftie agreenient ^ifmzi) difference or provides of clauses of ihis Agreeiner^ ^ispute arises in the interpretation qfany \t in respect of non compliance qf the XI-HC—78 3^cr •^l^t^^, ^Tfiy^tC, |sf<?I>iy(d,< ^ TTW^TT *^|cb -^ 200 3?T^?T'q^E ('<I^t^?^) ^TI^T^T ^^r'^n^i ^mW^^^<¥f 45l^fd4i^ 'WI^f '^•^fOT^I^l ^fe^ <fat^K oondiiions by either qf the p^ Sole Arbitrator for arbitratio^ cmdConciliationAct, 1996s iriies, the matter shall be referred to the under the provisions qf ihe Arbitration

3. The a^reenient was of signing of fhe agreement. could not be conipleted becal cany out the obUgations on applicaat was constraiaed tc| ofAnnexure-A/2 dated 04.0; >rmi|n provide facihties by perfonni|i agreeraent. However the non

07.03.2005 deniedl coniniunication of Annexurd Annexure-A/1 dated 11.04.2<| for a period of five years frora fhe date |However, the work under fhe agreecaent ^se of fhe failure of fhe non applicaat to |their part as per the agreeinent aad the issue notice as per fhe communication 1.2005, caUiag upon the non appUcaat to |ag fh.eu' obligations as per terois of tlie |appUcaat m their reply ofAnnexure-A/3 allegations levelled in. t-A/2 aad resciaded the agreement of <D03.

4. The appUcant vide communication dated 11.04,2005 of Annexure-A/4 referrmg pro\ iavoked fhe arbitration clau^e dsions of Clause-11 of the agreeinent and requested the non applicaat to process for appointmient of sc^ the three persons for their| referred to a sole arbitrator, |le arbitrator by suggestmg fhe names of consent so Uiat the dispute may be

5. Anofher notice was sei x|ved to fhe non-applican^t of Annexure - A/5 whereby iianies of the non appUcant was requested t|iree arbitrators were proposed and tiie to consent on any one offhe proposed XI-HC—78 3:^cT ^il-MI^, ^Tfl^4lC, fs)01<-1^< ^ iTPq^ *N(ch W^ 200 <-3>-_ sn^FTRra; (i^tyi^) "f^N ' arr^r ^? ^?^i' W^ ^RW •^f^R^^^l^T <^^{^4I'f 'HIWif ^1^^ <fa^i< ^T 3FJRP? 3T?^[ names for appouitBient of s^le arbitrator wifhin thirty days of the receipt ofthis letter. ^ 6, The non-appUcaD^t of Annexurc-A/6

29.07.2005, did not accept th^ nanies suggested by fhe appUcaat and LN»- reterence was inade to earUel had BiutuaUy agreed on the ^o each of fhem., discussions whereby bofh the pardes names of fhe arbitrator to represent

7. The non-appUcant has petition on fhe ground that A/l caanot be regarded a^ [objected to fhe niamtaiaabiUly pf this 11 of the agreement of Annexure - Cl^use an arbitration agreement aad fhe agreeinent does not contenipl^t to arbitration as fhe arbitratiob. ^te dispute of aU nature to be referred clause refers ordy to mterpretation of fhe clause of fhe agrcesnent,

9. 1 have heard leaaied coi nsel for the pardes, I perused fhe| agreeuient tihie vanous con-espondences flled by fhe ^ non appUcaat that Clause 1 1 difterence or dispute ia the| IppMcant. So far as the objection of fhe tprovides for arbitration wifh. respect to mterprctation of aay clause of fhe agreenient in respect of non c<j>ni] tJie parties was conceraed, obUgations of fhe parties ia dispute raised by fhe appllc4iit obUgations by the non appUc^nt (|>mpliance of fhe conditions by eitiier of tpie agreenient provides for respective ^arious clause of fhe agreeinent, The pertaias to non-performin g of the as per tertas aad conditious offhe XI-HC—78 ~5^ -^WW^, ^W\<S,, fs<01-H^< 17T17W 9hN|cb -^ 200 ^- 3?T^?T X?5TO (^F^^?) ^ ' ^TI ^ f^TJ^ ^^T^R^f^^T^r <^i^f<'i<ilti 'w^if ^fe^ <fa^8< '^'3ti?Fr^Tj^l contract ^rcement. Therefor^ non-appMcant regardiag So far as the allegatio|ris

10. regarding non perfonnanc^ conceraed the same is to be I see no merit ia the objection of fhe mamjtamabiMty mjtamabiMty offlie iastaiit petition. of the appUcaat aad non-applicant respective obligations a|djudged by the arbitrator.

11. Considermg fhat the tato a contract which coiijtams considering fhat fhe non-app fhe appUcant for the appomt(aent Fjarties to the proceedmgs had entered arbitration clause and further ^caiit has failed to act on fhe request of of arbitrator aad also considering that fhe dispute had arisen is of fhe opiaion fhat a case of fhe contract agreeinent, this Court |for appointment of arbitration is made out,

12. Leamed counsel for objection if Hon'ble Shri Jusltice tlie parties submit fhat they have no V, K. Shrivastava, former Judge of J^ilaspur is appomted as sole Arbito^tor hiai^ High Court of Chhattisgarh, ia the present case, 13, Therefore, I hereby, HonTble Shri Justice V.K.Shri^ Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, sole the consent of the parties, appoint ^astava, former Judge of High Coiirt of |arbitrator, subject to his consent

14. The Hon'ble Arbitrator liay settle his terms and conditions and reinuneration. 15, Registiy to mtimate former Judge of High Court o ^on'ble Shri Justice V.K.Shrivastava, C.G. Bilaspur, about his appomtment XI-HC—78 3^c[ ^|-q|0^, ^Tfi'y^KS, [sf^l^^< ^ ^l^dl **<(<*» W1, 200 ^ ^^ 3H^T XT^ (^?^<^) W^T^T'^N> ?CT'3^i^^fe ^^R ^li^ ^tt^r ^i^ferah 'w^f '^,'fex^ xfe$i< ^3?iRR^?^ as ArBrG^tor"^^ to^ieECTCTCT| fhe papers alongwii&.addrcss of fhe parties. Pardes are also direct^ 16, V,K.Shirvastava, who is pres|e3 Civil Liaes, BUaspur and to| ?d to approach Hon^ble Shn Justice enUy residmg at Bungalow No,B/46, submit papers aiid to take part in arbitr^ition proceeduigs. M,C,C. is accordiagly di^posed of, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^rs^ <•• f»»^