Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : R.BAYAPU REDDY
APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyd. - Appellant
Versus
P.Venkat Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 08-11-98
Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 5, 8, 11 and 12 - Civil Revision – Work Contract – Agreement – Arbitration clause – Appointment of Arbitrator - Authority of the named arbitrator in both the cases was revoked and an independent arbitrator was appointed in his place - whether mere delay in passing the award and failure on the part of the arbitrator to pass the award within four months can be considered as a ground for revoking his authority –Held, it is observed that the delay caused by the named arbitrator taking effective steps for proceeding with the arbitration work was not such delay as to warrant the removal of the arbitrator, nor could it be said on account of such delay that there was lack of reasonable dispatch on his part warranting his removal. In the present case also, as already stated above, after the first respondent contractor submitted his claim statements, the arbitrator is said to have granted time for over a period of eight months to the revision petitioner to submit his counter and the petitions were filed by the contractor to revoke the authority of the named arbitrator only on account of such delay on the part of the arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration work. On account of such delay alone it cannot be said that the arbitrator has neglected his work, nor can it be said that he is guilty of any bias as claimed by the contractor in his petitions and relating to which no finding was given by the lower Court. In view of all these circumstances, the orders of the lower Court revoking the authority of the named arbitrator and appointing an independent arbitrator cannot be sustained – Revision allowed
( 1 ) THESE two civil revision petitions are filed by the same party, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Chief Civil Engineer-I, Hyderabad question the two separate orders dated 6-8-1993 passed in O. P. No. 491/89 and O. P. No- 492/89 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by which the authority of the named arbitrator in both the cases was revoked and an independent arbitrator was appointed in his place.
( 2 ) THE first respondent in the present revision petitions is the contractor who entered into separate agreements with the petitioner herein for construction of bus stands at Yerragondapalem and Kanigiri in Prakasam district. As disputes arose between the parties regarding some amounts claimed by the contractor relating to the works done by him as per the contracts, the contractor chose to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreements and requested the General Manager, APSRTC who is the named arbitrator in the contract and who is shown as the second respondent herein to enter into reference and decide the disputes between the parties and submit his award. The named arbitrator on such request made by the contractor, directed the contractor to submit his claim statements and when such claim statements were filed by the contractor the arbitrator directed the revision petitioner (Department) to file its counter statements. Subsequently, the contractor filed two petitions in OP No. 491/89 and O. P. 492/ 89 in the lower Court under the provisions of Sections 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 requesting the Court to revoke the authority of the named arbitrator and appoint another arbitrator, preferably a retired Chief Engineer, in the place of the named arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties contending that even though the claim statement was filed by him before the arbitrator on 27-2-1989, the arbitrator failed to decide the disputes and instead granted nearly eight months time to the Department to file its counter statements, that the arbitrator thereby failed to act promptly and pass his award within four months after entering into reference. that in view of such delay he (contractor) apprehends bias on the part of the named arbitrator and does not expect that justice might be done to him if he is allowed to continue as arbitrator. The revision petitioner, who represents the Department, contested the two O. Ps. before the lower Court contending that there are no valid and justifiable reasons for revocation of the authority of the named arbitrator and for appointing a new arbitrator. After hearing both sides and on the basis of the material before him the lower Court allowed both the O. Ps. and revoked the authority of the named arbitrator and appointed a retired District Judge as arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties in both the matters. Questioning such Orders the present revision petitions are filed by the Department.
( 3 ) AS the facts involved in both the cases and the points to be decided are the same they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
( 4 ) AS seen from the facts of this case the first respondent herein who is the contractor entered into two separate agreements with the revision petitioner which is the APSRTC represented by its Chief Civil Engineer-I, Hyderabad for construction of bus stands at Yeeragondapalem and Kanigiri in Prakasam district and as disputes arose between the parties as per the arbitration clause in the agreements relating to the execution of the said works the first respondent requested the named arbitrator who is the General Manager of the APSRTC to arbitrate the disputes between the parties as per the arbitration clause in the agreements and submit his award. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced before the lower Court. There is no material to show as to when die arbitrator was requested by the first respondent to act as arbitrator to dec
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
