1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.163 OF 2009 M/s.Angeriehner Structural & Civil Engineer .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.Zal Andhyarujina i/b. Chambers of Javed Gaya petitioner Mr.Ramesh Dhanuka with H.C.Pimple for respondent. WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.588 OF 2009 Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai .. Petitioner Versus M/s.Angeriehner Structural & Civil Engineer .. Respondent Mr.Ramesh Dhanuka with H.C.Pimple for petitioner Mr.Zal Andhyarujina i/b. Chambers of Javed Gaya for respondent 2 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Reserved on : 9th October 2009. Pronounced on : 8th March 2010. ORAL ORDER:- 1] This is a Arbitration petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner original claimants. The bids were invited by respondents for rehabilitation of its sewer by liner/ coating method. Contract in that behalf came to be awarded by the petitioner on 2nd March 2001. On account of disputes between parties and pursuant to the Arbitration clause in the contract, the matter came to be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal which has made the Award on 11th July 2007. 2] The majority Award is impugned by the petitioner on the grounds which are more particularly set out in the petition itself. 3] Arbitration Petition No.588 of 2009 is filed by the Municipal 3 Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenging the very same award (majority award) to the extent it awards the claims more particularly set out in the petition. 4] Considering that both sides have challenged the majority award and are aggrieved thereby and further taking into account the nature of the challenge, interest of justice would be sub-served if this petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 5] Hence, Admit. Respondents in respective petitions waive service. Heard by consent finally at the admission stage itself. In the light of the challenge to the award by both sides, interest of justice would be served if the award dated 11th July 2007 is set aside and parties are relegated to the position where the claims/ counter claims shall be adjudicated afresh. There is no serious opposition to this course of action. Therefore, it would be open for them to take appropriate steps in that behalf and resolve the disputes in accordance with the terms of contract. It would be open for them to resolve the disputes by recourse to arbitration afresh. Both sides do not dispute existence of the Arbitration Agreement/ Clause. 4 6] When the order was pronounced, both sides have agreed that the contractual stipulation with regard to arbitration by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators be substituted, by consent, with, arbitration by a sole arbitrator. In the light of this consent, it is directed that the fresh arbitration shall be by a sole Arbitrator. By consent of parties, Justice Shri. V.P. Tipnis, retired Judge of this Court is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The sole Arbitrator is requested to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 7] It is clarified that no opinion is expressed on merits of the contentions and pleas raised by both sides including on the point of jurisdiction and all are kept open. 8] Both petitions are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)