The court reinforced that impartiality and independence of arbitrators is essential, disqualifying those with vested interests under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. The aforesaid petitions have been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as `Act') with prayer for appointment of nominee arbitrator for the respondent, who along with the nominee of the petitioner appointed vide notice dated 25.06.2020, would appoint a presiding Arbitrator and the said Arbitral Tribunal so constituted would adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties under the Agreement.

2. The parties entered into Contract Agreements on different dates for execution of various works as awarded to the petitioner by the respondent.

3. In ARB.P. 366/2020, contract between the parties dated 14.01.2009 was for work of `additional works such as construction of boundary wall/retaining wall, circulating area, entry road, service road, RCC Box Bridge and other allied works in connection with development of new passenger terminal at Anand Vihar', for an amount of Rs.17,70,25,337.94/-.

4. In ARB.P. 367/2020, contract between the parties dated 15.10.2007 was for work of `Earthwork in filing, blanketing, const. of minor bridges, major bridges, major bridges No.8,) approx. 3 x 12.20 m span) No. 16 (approx. 4 x 9.15 m span) including pile foundations and PSC slab, provision of additional openings under existing ROB No.9 & 15 of sizes (approx. 1 x 10.30 m span) & (approx. 1 x 10.30 + 1 x 5.00 m) respectively Box Pushing Technique, RCC Box Bridges over nallah, miscellaneous building works and other allied works in c/with 3rd and 4th Line between Sahibabad & Anand Vihar', for an amount of Rs.30,95,25,507.10/-.

5. In ARB.P. 368/2020, contract between the parties dated 01.01.2009 was for work of `Construction of New Station Building, Platforms, etc. in connection with development of facilities at Delhi Sarai Rohilla' by Northern Railways.

6. In ARB.P. 370/2020, the contract between the parties dated 30.01.2012 was for work of `Construction of 100 Units type-V transit accommodation for essential Operational and Maintenance staff of Railway at Safdarjung and other allied work'.

7. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties. In ARB.P. 366/2020, contract was rescinded by the respondent vide letter dated 21.09.2017. In ARB.P. 367/2020, work is stated to have been completed by the petitioner on 15.10.2015, though completion was granted by the respondent on 19.11.2016 post facto since works of approach road was done subsequently after approval from the department. In ARB. P. 368/2020, the work awarded to the petitioner was short-closed by respondent on 30.10.2014 on the ground that Northern Railways had no fund for the said building available with the department. The contract in ARB.P. 370/2020 was short closed by the respondent vide letter dated 04.01.2016 upon request of the petitioner.

8. The process of invocation and appointment of Arbitral Tribunal in all the four cases is provided under Clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC). Clause 63 of GCC provides for settlement of disputes by referring the disputes to GM, Railways, who has to decide the same within 120 days of receipt of the same. This process is required to be followed before appointment of any Arbitral Tribunal. Clause 64 provides for the process of appointment of arbitrator. Clause 63 and 64 of GCC which existed when the parties entered into respective Agreements are reproduced below for ready reference:

"SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES- INDIAN RAILWAY ARBITRATION RULES