SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Del) 137

High Court Of Delhi
VED PRAKASH MITTAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 625-A of 1982
Decided On : 05/28/1984

Advocates Appeared:
G.N.AGGARWAL, GIRISH AGRAWAL, MUKESH GUPTA, R.M.Bagai

The court has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 20 (4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, where the Chief Engineer, who is designated to appoint the arbitrator, refuses to do so.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR - CHIEF ENGINEER REFUSING TO APPOINT - COURT'S POWER TO APPOINT - SECTION 20 (4) OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1940.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the Union of India for the construction of a school. The agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for the appointment of an arbitrator by the Chief Engineer. Disputes arose between the parties, and the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 4 read with Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, invoking the arbitration clause and requiring the Chief Engineer to appoint an arbitrator. The Chief Engineer did not appoint the arbitrator. The contractor thereupon made an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Act against the Union of India and the Chief Engineer, praying that the agreement be filed and the disputes be REFERRED TO to arbitration of a person to be appointed in terms of clause 25 of the agreement failing which an arbitrator may be appointed by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Chief Engineer's refusal to appoint an arbitrator did not oust the jurisdiction of the court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The court further held that the arbitration clause did not provide for an absolute and exclusive method of appointment of the arbitrator, and that the court had the power to appoint an arbitrator where the Chief Engineer failed or refused to do so.

Issues: Whether the court has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 20 (4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, where the Chief Engineer, who is designated to appoint the arbitrator, refuses to do so.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chief Engineer's refusal to appoint an arbitrator did not oust the jurisdiction of the court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The court further held that the arbitration clause did not provide for an absolute and exclusive method of appointment of the arbitrator, and that the court had the power to appoint an arbitrator where the Chief Engineer failed or refused to do so. The court relied on the following provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940: * Section 4: This section provides for the mode of appointment of the arbitrator by a person designated by the parties. * Section 8: This section provides for the procedure to be followed when a party fails or neglects to appoint an arbitrator. * Section 20 (4): This section provides that where the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the court shall appoint the arbitrator.

Final Decision: The court ordered the Chief Engineer to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause within two months from the date of the order, failing which a retired Registrar of the court would be appointed as the arbitrator.

Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff Ved Prakash Mittal entered into an agreement for the construction of Government Higher Secondary School (Scheme II-A) at Tulsi Nagar, Phase II. The agreement contained the following arbitration clause: "clause 25 :

"except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions, hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality or workmanship of materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be REFERRED TO to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, in charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be no Chief Engineer, the administrative head of the said Central Public Works Department at the time of such appointment. It will be no objection to any such appointment that arbitrator so appointed is a Government servant, that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Government servant he bad expressed views on all or any of the matters in disputes or difference. The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally REFERRED TO being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason, such Chief Engineer or administrative head as aforesaid at the time of such transfer, vacation of office or inability to act, shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by such Chief Engineer or administrative head of the C. P. W. D. , as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and if for any reason, that is not possible, the matter is not to be REFERRED TO to arbitration at all. In all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is Rs. 50,000. 00 (Rs. Fifty thousand) and above, the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. Subject as aforesaid the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause. It is a term of the contract that the party invoking arbitration shall specify the dispute or disputes to be REFERRED TO to arbitration under this clause together with the amount or amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute. It is also a term of the contract that if the contractor (s) do/does not make any demand for arbitration in respect of any claim (s) in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation from the Government that the bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractors) will be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the Government shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. The arbitrator (s) may from time to time with consent of the parties enlarge the time, for making and publishing the award. "

( 2 ) DISPUTES arose between the parties. The plaintiff issued a notice under Section 4 read with Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) invoking the arbitration clause and requiring the Chief Engineer to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the clause. The Chief Engineer did not appoint the arbitrator. The contractor thereupon made an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Act on 3rd May, 1982 against the Union of India and the Chief Engineer. He prayed that the agreement may be filed and the disp




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top