JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH,C.J.:---Contentions raised in these applications are dealt with in Arbitration Application No. 19 of 1997 decided on 5th December 1997. Parties are the same and facts are identical, except difference of dates. Hence for the reasons recorded in the said judgment and order, following identical order is passed.

2. In these applications also, under Clause 63.3 of the General Conditions of the Contract, three Arbitrators are required to be appointed as the claim of the applicants or the disputed amount is for more than Rs. 5 lacs. Further, appointment of only two Arbitrators as provided in Clause 63.3.(a) would not be consistent with the provisions of section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that:

"The parties are free to determine the number of Arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number."

Hence, appointment of three Arbitrators is a must. Considering the dispute involved, it would be just and reasonable to follow the procedure prescibed under the agreement for appointment of two Arbitrators.

3. Hence, it is directed that, for the purposes of appointing two Arbitrators, as referred to in Clause 63.3 the Corporation shall send a panel of more than three names of officers of appropriate status in the Corporation to the contractor, who shall suggest a panel of three names out of the list so sent by the Corporation, and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation will appoint one Arbitrator's out of his panel as the Contractor's nominee, and thereafter the second Arbitrator of equal status as Corporation nominee either from the panel or outside the panel, ensuring that one of the two Arbitrators so nominated is from the Accounts Department, who will be appointed as the Corporation's nominee.

4. With regard to the third Arbitrators, it would be reasonable to appoint a totally independent, impartial and disinterested person as the Presiding Arbitrator. Mr. Tutzapurkar, learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that Justice S.C. Pratap be appointed as the third Arbitrator. The suggestion is accepted and Mr.S.C. Pratap (retired Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court) is appointed as the third Arbitrator and presiding Arbitrator.

5. The Office to sent a copy of this Order to the Presiding Arbitrator.

6. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the arbitration proceedings may be held at Panaji. As against this, the learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the arbitration proceedings may be held at Bombay or Belgaum and not at Panaji. The applicants are having their Administrative Office at Belgaum. Considering these submissions, it is ordered that the arbitration proceedings shall be held at Bombay.

7. These applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document