The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to appoint an independent and impartial Arbitral Tribunal, considering the amended Act and the circumstances of the case.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. The brief facts as per petition are that the respondent issued an invitation for bid No. RVNL/LKO/UTR-RBL/1 on 7th March, 2012 for the work of 'Construction of Roadbed, Major and Minor Bridges, Track Lining (excluding supply of Rails and PSC Line Sleepers), General Electrical Work and S&T Works in connection with doubling between Utrahtia junction and Rae Bareli junction (65.6 Km.) on Lucknow Division of Northern Railway in Uttar Pradesh State, India' (hereinafter referred to as the 'work').

3. The petitioner submitted its technical and financial bid to the respondent for the work by its letter dated 4th May, 2012. The respondent accepted the bid of the petitioner by means of a Letter of Acceptance (hereinafter referred to as the 'LOA') dated 9th July, 2012.

4. The total contract price was stipulated as Rs. 178,82,64,454.00/-. In the LOA, the respondent required the petitioner to submit performance security and mobilization advance security by means of unconditional Bank Guarantees (hereinafter referred to as 'BGs').

5. In view of LOA dated 9th July, 2012, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a formal agreement which was reduced into writing by means of the contract agreement dated 14th August, 2012.

6. The term of the contract as originally agreed between the parties was for a period for 30 months from the date of start of work plus a defect liability period of 6 months.

7. As per the petitioner, the date of start of work was subsequently stipulated by the respondent as 16th August, 2012 and the stipulated date of completion was 15th February, 2015 as there were several difficulties which were encountered on the work site which were directly attributable to the defaults and breaches of the contract by the respondent, and which led to delay in the execution of the work and the petitioner was therefore constrained to seek an extension of time (hereinafter referred to as 'EOT') from the respondent for extending the period for the completion of the work. It is alleged that despite the aforesaid difficulties being faced by the petitioner on the work site, which were a result of the acts and omissions of the respondent, the respondent always blamed the petitioner for the delay in the performance of the contract. A termination notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner which was later withdrawn.

The petitioner thereafter sought an EOT from the respondent for extending the period for the completion of the work by means of its letter dated 8th January, 2015. On the basis of the aforesaid application for EOT as applied for by the petitioner, the respondent extended the time for completion upto 14th August, 2016 without levy of liquidated damages, by means of its letter dated 17th March, 2015. The petitioner received a letter dated 19th May, 2015 from the respondent, alleging that the petitioner was at fault in executing the work and therefore giving a notice of termination to the petitioner of the whole of the works.

8. In response to the notice of termination dated 19th May, 2015 issued by the respondent, the petitioner by its letter dated 26th May, 2015 rebutted the allegations made by the respondent in the notice of termination and called upon the respondent to reconsider its stand. However, the respondent by its letter dated 3rd June, 2015 formally terminated the contract on patently illegal grounds and called upon the petitioner to leave the work site.

The petitioner by its letter dated 22nd June, 2015 responded to the termination of the contract by the respondent and protested the termination and called upon the respondent to revoke the same and gave the details of the loss to be suffered in view of termination.

9. The petitioner submits that after the expiry of