M/S. PACE A REGISTERED FIRM v. UNION OF INDIA

O.P.No.641/20022amount of Rs.92,217/- to the petitioner in full and finalsettlement of the whole dispute. Thereafter, by Ext.P6proceedings dated 29.11.2001, the 2nd respondent againappointed the 3rd respondent as an Arbitrator to decide andmake an award regarding certain claims shown in thestatement attached therewith, which are the very same claimsin the counter claim filed by the 1st respondent before the 4threspondent Arbitrator. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondentArbitrator issued Ext.P7 notice dated 4.12.2001 directing thepetitioner to appear before the Arbitrator for furtherproceedings in the matter. The petitioner is challengingExts.P6 and P7.2.The contention of the petitioner is that the 2ndrespondent had no jurisdiction to appoint another Arbitrator todecide the matter since the very same dispute had alreadybeen decided by the 4th respondent. As is evident from the listof claims attached to Ext.P6, the claims represent the counterclaim made by the 1st respondent before the 4th respondentmentioned in Ext.P2. Under Section 33(4) and (5) of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, if any party wanted theArbitrator to make an additional arbitraral award as to claims O.P.No.641/20023presented in the arbitraral proceedings, but omitted in thearbitraral award, the aggrieved party has to make a request tothe same Arbitrator within thirty days from the receipt of thearbitraral award and the Arbitrator has to consider the requestwhich if found to be justified, an additional arbitraral awardshall be made by the Arbitrator within sixty days from thereceipt of such request. In view of the said provision of law, the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing a new Arbitratorthe 3rd respondent to decide the very same issue which hasalready been decided by the 4th respondent is withoutjurisdiction, is the contention raised. Further the petitionerwould submit that in view of Ext.P5 settlement entered intobetween the petitioner and the 1st respondent in full and finalsettlement of all disputes referred to the Arbitrator, there is noscope for reference for any dispute to an Arbitrator.3.I have considered the rival contentions in detail.4.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf ofrespondents 1 and 2 which is conspicuous by the absence ofany answers to the petitioner's contentions. Admittedly, thedispute now referred to the 3rd respondent contained in Ext.P6is the counter claim raised by the 1st respondent before the 4th O.P.No.641/20024respondent, which has ended in Ext.P3 award. Therefore, ifrespondents 1 and 2 had any case that the 4th respondent hadomitted to consider that claim, the course open to them was toapproach the 4th respondent himself for making an additionalaward within the time limit prescribed in Section 33(4) of theArbitration and Conciliation Act. Admittedly, that has not beendone. Instead, by Ext.P6, the very same dispute had beenreferred for adjudication to a new Arbitrator namely, the 3rdrespondent. The same is clearly against the provisions of theArbitration Conciliation Act and therefore unsustainable. Evenotherwise, after having chosen to settle the entire dispute withthe petitioner by entering into Ext.P5 agreement in full andfinal settlement of claims between the parties, it is not open tothe 2nd respondent to rake up the same again by appointinganother Arbitrator. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P7 are clearlywithout jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same are quashed. The original petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGEAcd O.P.No.641/20025