c4? W// IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBITRATION APPL1CAT10N No. :7” / 2009 PETITIONER : Rajesh Tejwani, wgig mmgn‘ S/ o Shri Jairamdas Tejwani, R.E.Complex, Bilaspur—(C.G.) 9<’ 2. The Chief Electrical Engineer (Construction) South East Central Railway, B1laspur~(C G } APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCIIJATION AF‘IT‘ 100A FOP APPOINTMENT OF‘ APRITPA'T‘OP ¥$r:é\g:? Ww“ Aged ‘about 4.5 yearsi Proprletor Teja Electncals W .....30Aw 5 Jaidev Complex, Byramjee Town, Nagpur— 13(M.S.) Wad» Vsrsus RESPONDENTS : Q’ 1 . South East Central Railway, Through — General Manager, Old HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2009 PETITIONER Rajesh Tejwani‘ Versus RESPONDENTS South East Central Railway and another. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 11 16) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (SB: Hon’ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : Mr. Prafulla N1 Bharat, counsel forthe applicant. Smt. Naushin Ali, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (04.07.201 1) 1. The applicant has preferred application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth ‘the Act’) for appointment of Arbitrator. 2. According to the parties to the application, the applicant is a proprietor of Teja Electricals having its ofhce at 5, Jaidev Compiex, Byramjee Town, Nagpur and is a contractor whereas respondents are railway authorities and engaged in transportation of goods and passengers. 3. On 03.06.2005 a notice for inviting tender for electrification of private siding of M/s IND Agro Synergy Limited was published by the respondents. in pursuance of notice inviting tender, the applicant made his offer and the contract valuing about Rs.1 ,64,47,346/— for the aforesaid work was awarded to him. The applicant completed the work on 14.05.2006. On 25.01.2007 completion certificate was issued to the applicant by the respondents/railway authorities. Thereafter final bill was prepared but the same could not be paid to the applicant. 4. Vide letter dated 23.03.2009 the applicant lodged his claim before respondent No.1. ln the aforesaid claim, the applicant had specifically made a statement to settle the dispute or else he will be at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause as provided in the agreement. The respondents Vide letter dated 25.02.2009 intimated the appticant that concerned department has been advised to look into the matter. On 07.04.2009 the appiicant again sent a notice (Annexure P/4) to the respondents demanding appointment of Arbitrator to resoive the dispute between the parties but nothing has been done by the respondents. Hence, this application. 5. The respondents have tiled their reply submitting therein that final bill was prepared and passed for payment on 27.2.2008 but the same could not be cleared due to certain objections raised by the Accounts Department with respect to non-supply of manufacture test certmcate, which is mandatory, so as to avoid any objection during audit. lt was further contended that the applicant is not entitled to get the amount of final bill on account of several recoveries against him amounting to RS206 Cl'OI'ES. 6. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. in the instant case, existence of arbitration agreement is not in dispute. As per the applicant, the respondents are not paying the amount of final bill deliberately without any rhyme or reason. On the other hand, as per the respondents, a recovery of Rs.2.06 crores is pending against the applicant. Thus, there is clearly a dispute between the parties with regard to payment of nnal bill to the applicant. 8. Considering that the parties to the proceedings had entered into contract which contains arbitration clause and further considering that the respondents have failed to act on the request of the applicant for appointment of arbitrator and also considering that the dispute had arisen out of contract agreement, this Court is of the opinion that a case for appointment of arbitrator is made out. 9. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the matter can be referred for arbitration in terms of clause 64 (3) (a) (ii) of the General Conditions of the Contract for resolution of their dispute before the Arbitratral Tribunal consisting of three existing railway officers namely Shri A.K. Singh, FA & CAO/Con/BSP, Shri S.C. Mishra, CSTE/CON/SEC/BSP and Shri S.N.Dubey, ADRM/SECR/BSP. 3 10. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, the matter is referred for arbitration to Arbitrai Tribunaf consisting ‘of Shri AK. Singh, FA & CAO/Con/BSP‘ Shri S.C. Mishra, CSTE/CON/SEC/BSP and Shri S.N.Dubey, ADRM/SECR/BSP. Out of the above officers, Shri S.N.Dubey shaii be presiding Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. 11. Registry of this Court to intimate the above Arbitrators. The Officers so appointed hereinabove are expected to give their award as expeditiously as possible. Necessary papers be also sent to the above (a Arbitrators along with addresses of the parties. 12. Parties to the application are also directed to approach the above Arbitrators and to submit their relevant papers and also to take part in arbitration proceedings. 13. in view of the above‘ this application for appointment of Arbitrator stands disposed of. Anjani \tlrQ