JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH, J.:--- It is the contention of the applicant a Private Limited Company, that it is a registered contractor in several States, including the State of Maharashtra and Karnataka. The applicant is engaged in civil engineering works contracts etc., particularly pertaining to Tunnelling and Hydro Power Projects. Respondent No. 1 is the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and respondent No. 2 is the Chief Engineer (North) of the said Corporation. It is contended that, on 10th November, 1993, respondent No. 1 accepted the tender submitted by the applicant for construction of Karbude Tunnel- Tunnel No. 20 for Konkan Railway Project. The cost of construction was estimated at Rs. 3,48,41,163.84 and stipulated date of completion of the contract was 9th November, 1994. It is submitted that, as soon as the applicant started the work, several impediments were raised by the respondents in the said work. However, the applicant was in a position to complete the work by May, 1995. Still, however, the respondent failed in settling claims and disputed accounts pertaining to the contract. It is contended that, by letter dated 10th June, 1995 the applicant requested the second respondent to settle the several claims enumerated in the said letter. As the respondents did not settle the claims raised by the applicant, by letter dated 29th June, 1996, the applicant informed the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No. 1 that disputes have arisen between the parties, and, therefore arbitration proceedings be initiated under the provisions of General Conditions of Contract. As the respondents failed to appoint Arbitrators, this application is filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act") for referring the dispute to arbitration as provided under the said section.

2. The respondent have filed affidavit, wherein it has been stated that they have not objected to reference of the dispute raised by the applicant to Arbitrators as contained in clause 63.3 of the General Conditions of the Contract. It is also contended that the contract between the parties is of technical nature and requires investigation into various technical details. Therefore, for that purpose, the Corporation will send the panel of more than three officers of the Corporation to the contractor, who will be asked to suggest three name out of the said list. Thereafter, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation will appoint one Arbitrator out of the three names suggested by the contractor and then appoint Second Arbitrator of equal status, ensuring that one of the Arbitrators shall be nominated from the Accounts Department. It is also pointed out that, as per the Agreement between the parties, there will be no objection to the officers of the Corporation being appointed as Arbitrators. Clause 63.3(f) of the General Conditions of the Contract provides that an Arbitrator shall not be one of those who had an opportunity to deal with the matter to which the contract relates or who has in course of his duties expressed any view on any of the matters in dispute. It is contended that this is fair and reasonable arbitration clause which is binding between the parties. With regard to the facts alleged by the applicant, the respondents have denied the same.

3. By a further Affidavit dated 20th June, 1997, it has been also stated that, as per clause 63.1.1 of the General Conditions of the Contract the applicant is required to present its final claim on disputed matters and after 90 days, but before 180 days of his submitting the final claim, it has to demand in writing for arbitration. It is contended that the applicant made representation to the respondents on 20th December, 1995, which was rejected by the respondents on 25th March, 1996 giving detailed reasons for each sub-claim, and, thereafter, the applicant has not pressed its final claim. It is also contended that, though the applicant has n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document