^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Civil Case No. ...vd.l......of2005 APPLICANT :-M/S Sinha Enterprises (Govt. Contractors & Engineers) HO-Bhagat Singh Colony, PO-Singrauli ,Distt-Sidhi(M.P) Through its Constituted Attomey Shri D.K. Sinha Versus + RESPONDENTS :-1. South Eastem Coalfields Limited (A subsidiary ofCoal India Limited ) Kusmunda Project ,PO-Kusmunda, Distt-Korba (C.G) Pin- 495454 .0 4 <" ;t /yy /' ^ / ^ Through its Chief General Manager 2. Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastem Coalfields Limited / HO-Seepat Road ,PostBox-60, Bilaspur (C.G) ApDlication under Section 11 ofthe Arbitration and ;iliation Act 1996 for Appomtment of Sole Arbitrator fClaim Amount Rs. ^8.92.374.67 ±interest) ....^..^.^. 'T' XI-HC-78 ^ ^ \jx-r|»^|qirt^,U>TH^<l<S,[filrtl^-l^ ,^^^^a-.^.A-...^/^.£.. W^20Q Sffl^?iq^ ((^li^Glt^) 3TT^^TcprR»li<h H^T3TT^$TaWcp |w»,.i g^HWCTf^T 3?1^$T 30/09/2005: - M.C.C.No.41of2005: Heard Ms. Sharmila Singhi and ^r. JA. Lohani learned counsel This is an appiication fiied| and Condiiation Act, 1996 for appc| disputes betwoen tho petitioner arising out of the agreement^ 21/01/2003, 25/02/2003. 10/0^ 20/03/2003, 26/03/2003, 23/06/2G|03 execution of various civil works No.1. In para ©.7 of the apptic| appended to the General terms stated that in case of any ambigui^ referred to and the provisions in upon and Ciauso 14 of the civ| arbitration of disputes between person appointed by the Ch| respondent No.l/Company. The respondente in their re^ englneering manual cannot be pre^ that arbitration clause contained c| to the contract between the par^ies cpr^fcxili ^TR^f^'fe^t ^FJI^-CI^ ^3iNwrw^$T ii learned counsel for the applicant for the respondente. under Section 11 of the Arbjtration intment of an arbitrator to decide the ind tho respondent No.l/Company dated 17/10/2002, 14/12/2002. i/2003, 12/03/2003, 19/03/2003, ^, 03/07/2003 and 21/07/2003 for st Kusmunda project of respondent ^tion it is stated that in the note and conditions of the contract it is the civii engineering manuai wiil be ?vil engineering manuai shall prevail engineering manual provides for ^he parties by sole arbitration of a lirman-cum-Managing Director of ^ly have stated in para 4 that the civll ^sed into 3en/ice and even if It ss heid vil engineering manual is applicable », then aiso agreed appointment J! \3W| <-qiqio<(, U>-al\1<l<»,Rlrtl^-l^ ^-^ .m:±t.:.^/^oof... WTOT^TT^ "'J ^200 an^CTwR^icb ?Tangn^?Ta?qw W^$T tRR? (IICrf36Rf) ?^TTWr;CTfgnW^$T -3L- procedure in clause 14 of th( Chairman-cum-Managing Direc^or fails to perform hte function, tiijen neoesoary measuros for appoint^ent of the arbitration agreement. In however, haye not djsputed th^t entertain and decide the request civlj engmeering manual is that the is to appoint an arbitrator and if he the Court by directing him to take an arbitrator in accordance with Ipara 6 of the reply, the respondente, the Chief Justlce has jurisdiction to demahds Having heard learned c<| that in the of Datar Swi1 and another, (2000) 8 SCC 1^1 far as Section 11(6) of the concemed, if one party arbitrator and the opposste par^ thirty ctays of the demand, t^< automatically forfejted after expli party does not make any appo!( or even thereafter and the Section 11 of the Act making appomtment, the right of the op|posite the agreed procedure ceases^ In the present case, jt is the appjicant made a demand respondent No.1 on 18/11/200 Clause 14 ofthe civil Managing Director did not maki <pi<i[o<flvi ^+loV^fI^^ ^Ri^K ^3|f^T3n^?T ^unsel appearing for the parties, 1 find ;hgears Ltd. Vs. TATA Finance Ltd. (1, the Suprems Gourt has held that so Arbitration and ConciJiation Act, 1996 is the opposite psriy to appoint an does not make an appointment within (e right to appointment doos not get iry of thirty days. But if the opposite rtment withln thirty days of the demand party fiies an appiicatlon under request to the Chief Justice to make party to make appointment under optsosite ^tated in para 6.8 of the appljcation that to Chairman-cum-Managing Director of for appointment of an arbitrator under engjneerjng manual and y©tthe Chairman-cum- appointment of an arbitrator and in the ;0,000 r XI.HC-78 *11M^I ^^T^ ^ET T-qi<<ic»<<,yTTl<(l'll<s,Ric')!^^ fn-L-L' ^\y^oo^' 31T^5Tq^P(t|c|i^c|c£;) W^200 W^ST^Tf^rfcp nWOT^^TJIRPR „ ^b^ ?^tT4T?^rf^T3H^$T •-3 circumstances the applicant filed t?1e application makjng s request to the Chief Justice to appoint an arbitr^tor. In view of the said decisi Switchgears Ud. Vs. TATA right of respondent Np.2 to make the agread procedure laid down in| manualceases as soon as the appli| Court and it is now for the Chief arbitrator. For the aforesaid reasons, 1 IVioorthy, (Retd.) as anarbitrator t4 subject to his consent. 1 hope that t^ at Bilaspur for the convenienee of th< Parties are entitled for certified cpT<4[o4}'1 +1!+1<»>l'^rfei^l•<Rl<«l< ^3{^R'3nt§T i(?n of the Supreme Court Datar Finatice LSd. and another (supra) the lippointment of an arbitrator as per ICiause 14 of the cjvil engineering ijsant file the application before this lustice to make appointment of an ippoint Hon'bls Shri Justice A.S.V. decide the disputes in thjs case, ?e arbitrator wift hold the arbitration parties. copyoffhisorder. Sd/- ChiefJustice x^^°