IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I
----
A.A. NO.23/2006
----
M/s. Raunak Enterprises ...... Applicant.
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
2. Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines, Raw Material Division, Steel
Authority of India Ltd, Kiriburu, West Singhbhum.
3. The General Manager(Mines), Kiriburu Iron Ore Mines,
Kiriburu, Singhbhum West.
4. The Assistant General Managewr(Civil), Kiriburu Iron Ore
Mines, Kiriburu, Singhbhum West.
............ Respondents.
----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---
For the applicant: Mr.Chandrajit Mukherjee.
For the Respondents: Mr.Ananda Sen.
-----
17/04.11.2009
This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of
an agreement between the applicant and the respondent-Company
incorporating Clause 18.3 for appointment of an Arbitrator in case of
existence of a dispute, claim or difference other than the accepted
matters with respect to the contract.
The applicant has come up with a case that a dispute had
arisen between the applicant and the respondent-Company since the
applicant claimed payment for execution of the work related to
painting and white washing in the building owned and possessed by
the respondent-Company and submitted that although part payment
towards this work has been made to the applicant, entire dues have
not been cleared.
The counsel for the respondent-Company, on the other
hand, contradicted the averment and stated that the entire payment
has been made to the applicant and no amount is due to be paid.
Thus, it appears that a dispute has arisen in between the
parties regarding the payment towards white washing and painting
and the respondent-Company has paid approximately an amount of
Rs.80,000/- to the applicant whereas the applicant claims that the
amount which has been paid is only fifty per cent of the amount
claimed by it and further amount is required since the total bill raised
by the applicant was Rs.1,61,246/- out of which only fifty per cent
has been paid. The applicant, therefore, had a right to resort to
Clause 18.3 of the agreement for appointment of an Arbitrator for
settlement of the dispute.
Thus, the Clause for appointment of an Arbitrator comes
into play and will have to be invoked as per the terms and conditions
of the agreement. Counsel for the parties, therefore, were directed
to suggest the names of the proposed Arbitrators who could be
appointed for settlement of the dispute wherein the disputed amount
is only Rs.81,246/- .
Counsel for the respondent-Company initially suggested the
name of an officer of the respondent-Company which was not
acceptable to the applicant as it was stated that the officer of the
Company would be an interested party and should not be permitted
to settle his own cause. The applicant, therefore, came up with the
other names who could be appointed as Arbitrator and out of the
same, the name of Shri Siddharth J.Roy has been suggested who
could be appointed as an Arbitrator to which the counsel for the
respondent-Company has no objection.
Therefore, there is no difficulty for this Court too in
appointing him as an Arbitrator for the dispute in between the
respondent-Company and the applicant as he is acceptable to both
the parties.
Hence, Shri Siddharth J.Roy is appointed an Arbitrator for
adjudication of the dispute which has emerged between the
applicant and the respondent-Company and obviously, the Arbitrator
will examine and adjudicate the dispute whether any amount is
payable to the applicant over and above the payment which has
already been made to the applicant.
The remuneration of the Arbitrator be mutually settled and
shared by both the parties in equal share.
The parties are left with liberty to impress upon the
Arbitrator that the dispute between the parties be adjudicated and
settled within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
This application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
Biswas