^ ^:!£^ .y^^'1'^^ ..^""^^ytiTff.^""'" -^y^'6 / ^••••""1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH M.C.C.NO. 0& OF 200^ APPLICANT ^ ,M/s J. K. Agarwala, 1-19 Civil Township (Fonnerly G.T. Lane, Near Raj Mahal Hotel), Rourkela 76901 l(Orissa) NON-APPLICANT 7~ Versus 1. South Eastem Central Railway ^(Formerly South Eastem Railway) Through its General Manager, Zonal Office, Bilaspur (CG) 2. The Chief Engineer (Constmction), South Eastem Central Railway, Bilaspur (CG) ^^^l^^y APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRARTOR F—•—- XI-HC-78 3TI^T^rR^i<=b cTSTf 3TRST ^RT°F mMcTTSSb+llch 3:ST^TraT^T, ^Tn^jl<o, ^^1^< ^CC '. 6/b^g wt^-<—<—/<t<>W[2 ^ ^[ 200 STT^rq^^ (^qi^q^) ^TT^K^TSTT^T 14-8-2006 IVlr. Sameer Behar, couns^ Mr. P.S.Koshy, counsei for| Heard. The applicant has preferre|d the Arbitration and Conciliationl appointment of an arbitrator with| between the parties as regard^ CPH/CPM/SER/94. As per the p|r generai conditions of the contr^i betv/een the parties is to be referr| Learned counsel for the appointment of an arbitrator was 10-2005 of Annexure A-4, which 20-10-2005 vide Annexure A-6, a|s and informing that the conceme^i into the matter and do the needft therefore, the dispute may be ref^r accordance with faw. Learned counse) for the applicants, vide communication d< the applicantthat the matter may said CQmmunication as per the p?|< contract agreement. 4)l^?d41^ ^l^^T^rte^'<Rl^l^ ^3=rf^TT3^T for the applicant. the non-applicants. this application under Section 1 1 (6) of Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act') for the averment that a dispute has arose > to contract agreement No.155/AKT" rovisions of the contract agreement and ct of the railways, any dispute arising sd to an arbitrator. applicant submits that a demand for nade vide the applicant's letter dated 7- was repiied to by the non-applicants on cknowledging the receipt of the demand department has been advised to iook ^l, but nothing was done thereafter and, ?rred to a soie arbitrator for arbitration sn non-app!icants submits that the non- ated 24-1-2006, had aiready intimated to be referred to the arbitrator named in the ovisions of the genera! conditions of the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 4 HWWl Sh+lich 3:^T;^TPT1^R, ^Tfl^^Ko, fc|qil<rt^< i^r.^.^/^^^ ^200 3TI^T^)Tf^TW cT^TWW^TW 3TI^T^^K (y<i^^) ?RTT^K ^rfN w^r z have heard iearned coun' It is not disputed that th^ <=hl^?<yl41r1 WToff ^ f^t <^1^t< ^^iRi^ W^T agreement mih non-appiicant el for the parties. applicant had entered into a contract for the work named "Execution of ).1 earthwork in formation in bank wi^h mechanicai compaction and in cutting, protection works such as pitchin^, turfing, etc. with other al!ied works in connectlon with construction of $rd Line between Akaitara and Champa Raiiway Stations". !t is also not contract and standard specificati| integral parts of the agreement b^ of the said generai conditions of difference between the parties hei procedure prescribed under Ciau^ contract. It is admitted by the non the parties and the appiicant ad( non-appiicants demanding that arbitration and even after recel contempiated in Clause 64 of t taken by the non-appiicants with recorded the submission of lean they had intimated the appiicanl 2006 that the matter may be ref^ communication, however, since in dispute that the general conditlons of )HS of the South Eastern Railway were Aween the parties and asperCiause 64 contract, in the event of any dispute or •eto shai! be referred to arbitration as per »e64(1) ofthe said genera! conditions of -applicants that a dispute arose between iressed a letter dated 7-10-2005 to the the said dispute may be referred to pt of the above letter, no action, as ie genera! conditions of contract, was n the stjpulated period. ! have aiready ^ed counsel for the non-appiicants that vide their communication dated 24-1- trred to the arbitrator named in the said |he non-applicants have failed to act in accordance with Section 11 ofth^ Act, therefore, this Court is ofthe view that the case for appointment of a 'bitrator is made out. r.1.0. XI-HC-78 HI*1<^1 Sb*1ich 3^T <^ll^lld<4, ^Tfl^Ko, fct^^y l^^.^b'^/2^-^ ^ 200 ^TT^T^rf^t^ <TSTT ^TT^T ^TT^ Gopal 3TT^Tq^ra7 (^oii^^) ^crrsgT :3crf?cT 3TI^T <r~^^ ^lzrf^T^ HTR^iY ^ fe^t ^I^R ilTsrf^sn^T However, at the time o counsel for both the parties that retired Judge of High Court adjudicate the disputes. hearing, it was submitted by learned [they have no objection if any honourabie |s appointed as the sole arbitrator to 4 hereby, therefore, appc|int Hon'bie Mr. Justice K.L.Shrivastava, former Judge of High Court of Shrivastava, District and Session The Hon'ble Arbitrator rr |u1adhya Pradesh, C/o Mr. Arvind Kumar ^ Judge, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). |ay settle his terms and conditions and remuneration. The Registry to intimat^ Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L.Shrivastava, fotNmer Judge of High Court of t/Sadhya Pradesh, C/o Mr. An/ind Kumar Shrivastava, District and Sessic^ns Judge, Ralgarh (Chhattisgarh) about his appointment as arbitrator ar-ld to send him all the papers along with address of the parties. The parties are also dir|^cted to approach Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L.Shrivastava cn his above a^idress and to submit papers and to take part in the arbitratio?i proceedingl Accordingiy, the M.C.C. st^nds disposed of. Certified copy as per rules|. __-_-—— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.