JUDGMENT - KAMDAR S.U., J.: - The present petition is filed under section 14(2) and section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia contending that the mandate of the term as arbitrator be terminated because of undue delay in proceeding with the appeal proceedings pending before him.

2. A contract executed by and between the petitioner and respondent for the construction of accommodation for Senior Officers in J.N.P. Township. On 5-7-1995 the work order was issued providing the date of completion as 30-9-1997. However, there were differences and disputes between the parties in the execution of the work. On 1-11-1999 petitioner forwarded their claims to the respondent. On 16-4-1998 according to petitioner work was completed. It is the case of the petitioner that however, payment was withheld because of Central Vigilance Committee enquiry and therefore, the money which was due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner were not released.

3. On 11-1-2000 petitioner applied to the respondent for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes. However, there was no response from the respondent herein. On 20-6-2000 the petitioner made request to the second respondent to resolve the dispute and appoint an independent arbitrator. However, on 31-9-2000 petitioners were directed to file their claim before the Chief Manager, Respondent No. 3 herein in accordance with and in terms of arbitration Clause 65 contained in the general terms and conditions of the contract. The said Clause 65 which is relevant for the purpose of present petition reads as under :

"DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND EMPLOYER :

Any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever arising between the employer and the contractor in connection with or arising out of the contract or the execution of the work whether before or after the determination, abandonment or breach of contract will be referred to the Chief Manager (P.P.D.). In the event of decision of Chief Manager (P.P.D.) not being acceptable to the contractor the matter shall be referred to chairman, J.N.P.T. whose decision shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties."

4. Ultimately the petitioner filed their claim before the third respondent on 20-9-2000. By the award dated 6-8-2001 the third respondent rejected their claim. According to petitioner, the said award is bad in law since the same was passed without following due process of law and other requirements including granting of hearing. Further according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 had passed a non-speaking award and rejected the claims of the petitioners.

By a letter dated 14-8-2001 petitioner requested respondent No. 3 to give reasons for the said award so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the second respondent in terms of Clause 65 of the Arbitration Clause as reproduced hereinabove. On 15-8-2001 petitioner addressed a letter to the Chairman of J.N.P.T. who is also Appellate Authority and second respondent herein. By the said letter, petitioner has inter alia also contended that though the claim of Rs. 8.92 lacs, was an admitted claim still third respondent has not been granted the same. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the said letter dated 15-8-2001 list of claims were forwarded to the second respondent who is chairman as and by way of appeal. By relying upon the said letter dated 15-8-2001 the learned Counsel has urged before me that the said letter is an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an award passed by the respondent No. 3 in terms of Clause 65 of the contract. It is further urged that thus the Appellate Authority being respondent No. 2 has failed to act and exercise its power in terms of Clause 65 of the contract. It is further urged that thus there is undue delay as contemplated under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 in deciding the said appellate arbitration proceedings and therefore, the mandate o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document