P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the Scheme framed by the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh under Section 11 (10) of the said Act seeking appointment of Arbitrator for resolving the disputes and claims arising out of the Agreement dated 1-9-1982 entered into between the applicant and the 1st respondent for the construction of the buildings for the 2nd respondent-Institution. The Agreement contains an arbitration clause (No. 8) read with clause 30 of the general conditions of the contract. Under the arbitration clause, the Director General. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi is named as sole Arbitrator and if he is unable or unwilling to act, a person appointed by him shall be the sole Arbitrator. The applicant by his letter dated 13-12-1996 addressed to the 2nd respondent sought reference of the dispute for arbitration. This was preceded by several letters starting from April, 1995 claiming the amounts alleged to be due to him under various heads. The applicant in his letter dated 11-3-1996 claimed a total sum of Rs. 93. 93 lakhs. The request for arbitration was turned down by a letter dated 4-3-1998 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the applicant. The letter reads as follows;"you are aware that your request for appointment of an Arbitrator for the disputed measurements/extra items and on the final bill prepared by this Centre on the work of Construction of South Wing, Animal House, Stores Block and Workshop, has been referred to CSIR, New Delhi for appointment of an Arbitrator. In this contention, I am directed to inform you, that your request was carefully examined by the CSIR, Head Quarters and since the work was completed in 1986/87, the matter is barred by limitation. Under the circumstances, the competent authority has rejected your request for appointment of an arbitrator in this matter. "thus, the request was negatived mainly on the ground of limitation. The applicant made a further unsuccessful attempt on 9-3-1998 in requesting the respondents to reconsider their decision. Once again, the 2nd respondent by its communication dated 26-6-1998 reiterated its earlier decision and informed the applicant that the matter shall be treated as closed. Thereafter, the present application is filed.

( 2 ) WHILE I was Acting Chief Justice, I heard the matter and order were reserved. Thereafter, I ceased to function as Chief Justice. In as much as under subsections (6) and (8) of Section 11, the Chief Justice or the person or Institution designated by him is empowered to appoint the Arbitrator, by way of abundant caution, I directed the Registry to obtain the orders of the Honourable Chief Justice as regards the dealing with this case further. The learned Chief Justice authorised me to deal with the case further. The case was once again posted for arguments. The learned Counsel for the applicant initially expressed some doubts as regards my competence to decide the application. The learned Counsel however expressed in categorical terms that he has no objection for the matter being heard by me and that their is no need to resolve the doubt expressed in this regard.

( 3 ) THE question is whether Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate on the disputes and claims arising out of the aforementioned agreement and if so who is to be appointed as Arbitrator.

( 4 ) AS already noticed, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent is that the work was completed as long back as in June, 1986 and the Contractor did not submit his final bill within two months from the date of the completion of the work. It is also their case that the applicant-Contractor did not turn up for taking measurements despite repeated opportunities given to him and therefore, the measurements were taken in his absence in December, 1989. It is the plea of the respondents that any monetary-claim in connection with the contract should have been made within a period

Click Here to Read the rest of this document