SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) OMP No. 132/2002 the present proceedings have been filed by the petitioner under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking to determine the existence and validity of the arbitration clause contained in clause (b) of Para 2900 of ISR conditions of contract and to revoke the authority of respondent no-2 arbitrator in view of the order dated 14. 01. 1991 passed in OMP NO. 100/87 by this court.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a purchase order placed by respondent no. 1 on the petitioner dated 13. 12. 1978. In view of the arbitration clause forming part of the terms and conditions of contract, the respondent no. 1 invoked the arbitration clause in terms of notice dated 22. 04. 1980 for non supply under the purchase Order of MS Two Way Keys. The matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. J. C. Singhal, who however entered upon reference only on 13. 07. 1984. The respondent no. 1 kept on taking time for filing the statement of claim and in the mean time, the time for making of the award expired. The arbitrator sought extension of time to make and publish the award, but the same was not agreed to by the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, respondent no. 1 filed an application under section 28 of the said Act for extension of time being OMP no. 100/87. The petition was opposed by the petitioner and it is this petition which was disposed of on 14. 09. 1991 by D. P. Wadhwa, J (as he then was ). The learned Judge noted that the time for making the award had expired in November, 1984 and the petition was filed on 22. 08. 1987 after a delay of more than two and a half years. On being asked to give better particulars about the delay, the same were not found to be satisfactory by the learned Judge as the only reason given was that the department had shifted and the entire record/files had been misplaced and could not be traced out. The court thus declined to extend the time for making the award after expiry of more than two and a half years of the time stipulated for making the award. No appeal was filed against this order and the same became final.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 once again after a lapse of more than four years in 1995 sought to invoke the same arbitration clause alleging that the earlier arbitrator could not give the award within the prescribed period and the application for extension of time period was rejected. The earlier arbitrator sh. J. C. Singhal had retired and thus the proceedings under section 28 of the said Act had become infructuous as per Clause (b) of Para 2900 of the IRS conditions of contract. On this alleged ground, the arbitration proceedings were sought to be re-started. Another communication was received vide letter dated 01. 12. 1998 from respondent no. 1 appointing Sh. Pradeep Kumar, the then Chief engineer of Respondent no. 1 as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner informed the sole arbitrator about the proceedings in OMP No. 100/1987 and ultimately vide a letter dated 20. 04. 2001 Sh. Pradeep Kumar refused to proceed further with the arbitration case. The matter did not rest at that and respondent no. 1 once again started the process of arbitration by appointing respondent no. 2 as the sole arbitrator vide letter dated 16. 09. 2001 and respondent no. 2 in turn informed the petitioner vide letter dated 11. 01. 2002. The petitioner protested to the commencement of arbitration proceedings vide reply dated 06. 03. 2002, but the arbitrator decided to proceed further.

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present petition was filed and interim orders were passed on 07. 05. 2002 staying further proceedings before the arbitrator. The respondents have filed their reply. The petitioner has filed the affidavit of evidence to prove the various documents. No reply affidavit was filed by the respondent and none appeared fro the respondent before the joint Registrar on 07. 09. 2005, 18. 11. 2005, 12. 12. 2005 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document