Judgment · High Court

The parties had entered into an agreement on 8/7/2003 for the construction of a residential complex consisting of several quarters and barracks for security per sonnel. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the contract particularly due to price escalation under Clause 10CC of the gene ral conditions of contract governing the parties. The petitioner claimed an amou nt of over Rs. 14 lakhs under this head. Certain other claims were also made und er various heads including damages and denial of refunds due to the petitioner e tc. Under these circumstances, the petitioner sought to invoke the arbitrati on clause which is Clause 25 of the Contract. The petitioner sent a notice dated 30/11/2009 making out a claim for an amount of Rs. 27,71,975/- and for the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of C lause 25 of the contract. By a letter dated 10/12/2009, the respondents required the Superintendin g Engineer, 3rd Circle, PWD(R&B), Udaipur, South Tripura, to see if it is possib le to arrive at some amicable settlement between the parties.

It appears that no amicable settlement was possible. The petitioner again wrote on 9/3/2010 for the appointment of an Arbitrator fail ing which the provisions Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be resorted to. In the absence of any response, the petitioner has pr eferred this petition for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit to the petition and it ha s been stated therein that there was no delay on the part of the respondents in processing the case of the petitioner including for payment of bills etc. As regards Clause 10CC, it is stated that payment has been made and ther e is nothing due to the petitioner in this regard. With regard to the refund cla imed by the petitioner, it is stated that since the petitioner had delayed compl etion of the work, the security deposit had been held back. From a perusal of the papers placed on record, it appears that certain d isputes and differences have arisen between the parties which need to be adjudic ated.

The respondents had an opportunity to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences but they have not done so. Under the circumstances, there is no option but to appoint an Arbitrator in exercise of powers conferred by section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Concili ation Act, 1996. Justice S. Barman Roy, retired Chief Justice of Orissa High Court is app ointed as the Arbitrator to enter into reference and adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. A copy of this order be sent to Justice S. Barman Roy for his informatio n. The Arbitration petition stands closed in the above terms.