IGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARHvAT BILAsPU Arbitration App'‘ PPELLAN South ,Eas'rem c‘oalfiel’d L+d. AT [ Versus RT Sh h ESPONDEN ureslg Meercandani osT FOR ORDER oN 19*" July, 200 P i 7 Sd/- Dhidr Mish Ll A ’ I I KA W1; H R ealNo;9 of'!‘ 2007 rena ra J—_*~._R_ ouTh asfr‘n oaIles L‘r rough Chairman cum Managin ecTor‘ as’r' oalflelds f anage Lega ’r1orne Holder Ea’rer‘n Coall Seeai lzoa llasu RESPONDENT S Md 8 Rdge .- d Idh Hs p limrd V ii’e‘ Versus ’ur‘esh eerchananl i Rga ga ull Bhoa . Md hy dh / a a $Pr’aes resent r. Advodre wTh s iru Mishra Aévbfe '- ‘c‘' i R’ ; ca P ‘ Dr. N.K or fhe‘apeHu f pm‘. y Ii H Ad f dt Sed mfaz A, voca’re or‘ responen O R D R (Dd 9) E elivere on 1/07/2007 lrendra lshm Dh M J23 b d h fdg h bl pdgs een reJec‘re wn‘ a lnln Tat The arifro roceein commenced before fhe Arblfrofor would be governed by the Arbrrro'hon & Concullahon Ac’r 1996 (herem refed as ‘Acf of 1996) and herefore rre uder Sfs 30 read wrrh Secf n eclon so on Te groun TaT even If Te aicaTIo o uer ecIo o he o groun, as envnsaged uner s n d d u 'S Ee CfH d Th g Dw Soufh Eern C Ld The General» Mr (l) Ay ‘~ sl fmdé p xd ‘Bpr. ..... al h d h h ppln I ThaT f nd STn 34 f T A ‘ has been esfabhshed for se’r’rmg aside fhe award passed by fhe Arbu’rrafor' 2) Brief faé‘ts- of The case is That The responden’r is a Civil Con’rr‘ac‘tor‘ who was engaged by The appellam as Confracior' , / vude work order daTed 8 4 1986 Issued by The Chief Engineer (CIVII), Western r Coqlflelds ’Llmlfed, Nagpur for The consTrucTion of‘ RCC overhead 'Tank aT Pali'Township of Sohagpur' A dlspufe arose befween The parTIes and responden’r Invoked The arbITraTIon clause of The agreemenT vude his IeTTer daTed 20 6 1994 and called upon The Chaurman cum Managmg 'DlrecTor (for shorT g‘CMD') of The appellanT herein To appoinT ArbiTraTor as per? arbiTraTion agreemenT. Respondent on failure of The CMD m appoinTing Arb’iTraTor, moved an applicoTion under SecTion 20 of The AcT of 1940 in ' The CourT of 2'“ AddiTionaI DisTriCT Judge, Biiaspur.‘The said appIicaTion was allowed and The dispuTe was referred To The ArbiTraTor To be appoinTed by The CMD, who AcTing on The saidxreference vide his IeTTer daTed 28.6.1996 appoinTed Mr. J P Thakur Chief Engineer (Civil) 5 E C L as The Sole ArbiTraTor for adJudIcaTIon of The dIspuTe The appomTed ArbITraTor' enTer'ed upon The reference and commenced The proceedings however subsequenTIy, he Tendered his- reslgnaTIon as an ArbITraTor In The meanwhile The appomTed ArbITraTor had compIeTed The subsTanTIal arbITraTIon proceedings excepTmakIng final award. On resignaTion of Shri Thakur The CMD appoinTed Shri T Prasad The Then ExecuTuve DirecTor (5&R) as ArbITraTor In place of Shri " Thakur Shrl Prasad passed The final award on 10 5 2006 gnd allowed The claim of The respondenT To The Tune of - R 64/- s 2 41 7 w. \ Acfiof 1996. _The disphfe was\ reféfre‘d foi‘ appoin’fmeht‘of-r ul .Disfr‘ictrJ'udge affer‘ coming irho force of fhe, Acfr' of '1996. \ Even, offer The Eeference‘ To fhe Sole A’r‘bifr‘a‘ror Shr' T Pr'asdd ’rhe ap‘F’JeHrdh? par’napafed m The arblfr‘ahon proceedings WIThou’r any obJecflon and Therefore fhe appelian'r was esfopped from mqkmg an application upder sec’rlon 30 r/w SecTIon H33 of The AcT of 1940‘cloiming ThaT The arbiTr'alTion proceedings rwehe ihf’ ’ focT conducTed under The AoT of 1996 RespondenT has also placed rehance on The JudgmenT of Thyssen STahlumon GMBH (supra) as also JudgmenT m The maTTer of The SecreT T The GovT of Orlssa and anoTher Vs sorbeswar RouT ” p conTended ThaT In arbITraTIon proceeding as soon as The ArbITraTor IndIcaTes his Willingness To acT as such The V proceedings musT be held To have commenced I have heard learned counsel for The respecTIve parTIes and perused The Impugned award IT is noT in dispuTe ThaT on an applicaTion preferredby The respondenT under ‘SecTion ZO‘of The AcT’of 1940 learned T- AddiTional ‘DVisTri’cT Judge referred The dispuTe To The/Sole. ArbiTraTor‘To be appoinTed bylThe" CM5 of The aprpellanT afTer coming InTo force of The AcT of 1996 IT Is also noT In dispuTe ThaT The CMD of The appellanT Vlde his leTTer daTed 8 6 2002 appounTed Shrl T Prasad as Sole ArbITraTor and In The sand communicaTIon IT has been clearly menTIoned ThaT The arbITraTIon proceeding Is To be held In accordance WITh The prOVISIons of The AcT of 1996 and ThereafTer' The parTIes ”for l The arbITraTIon agreemenT have parTIcIpaTed before The Sole ArbITraTor WIThouT any obJecTIon and ulTImaTely award was l >\ “~-v.‘”"% 'Arbitrafdr by The learned FAdAdition 7): s)' reported m AIR 1939 sUPREME coURT 2259 and II was, '7 V passed on10.5.2oo3_. . 1 : . ‘ lg a ‘ o n The ‘ atter o ,, i I f f hed f “s py hi ‘ e commenced before ommg InTo forc s- aso een el ’rha? new Ac‘r would be aphcable In rela‘hon T e ‘arltral roceedins which Commenced on or ofer‘fh AT i f i n’ro “the pafies, even w pg pn eo e b b e h ma dng. proceei MBH sura in;P’am 2 G (p) 2 ”ovisions o. ’r’rYoI Ac hall apl in re‘|ati’o‘nr1'o ‘rerar‘bfra proceedings whith hav e of The new AcT IT ha l b hd p o Th b pg fe new C :came nfo orce and f is ope r' here fhe anbi’rmfion roceedin ais endig bfre Th ArITraTor efore commencemenT of The new AcT To agre ThaT Te new AcT be s nrSTahlum ' ' N “ roceeding Takes lace when Th ilngness To acT-as such 11) 57 (”ready poimed-‘Txauwhat i A h AriTra’ror commenced onl after comin inTo' 'orcew ‘c’ o? IsTricT udge TaT Te awar passed by The ArblTra r do .oT became v0I an In-oeraTIve only because The same wa asse oTer Te ‘xpiry o The Term and The e od may b subseq ei pp f w 1'2)‘ In ’re r‘ésuh' ”the y exTende b The CourT Is based on T sTabIshed rmcules o la h o ‘ Sdl— hirendra Mish b y g o' Even oTherwse Thefindin ‘ D J h h d es A v Vn d d p s pd f h f p e y d y he I y on‘ Ar f 1996 u p p e ‘ wii . i g o D ra J