P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in SLP (C) Nos. 3205/ 2004, 14033-14034/2004, 21272-273/2002. What is the nature of the function of the Chief Justice or his designate under section 11 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 is the question that is posed before us. The three judges bench decision in Konkan Rly. Corpn. Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co. as approved by the Constitution Bench in Konkan Railway corpn. Ltd. and anr. v. Rani Construction pvt. Ltd. has taken the view that it is purely an administrative function, that it is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial and the chief Justice or his nominee performing the function under Section 11 (6) of the Act, cannot decide any contentious issue between the parties. The correctness of the said view is questioned in these appeals.

( 2 ) ARBITRATION in India was earlier governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1859 with limited application and the second Schedule to the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. Then came the arbitration Act, 1940. Section 8 of that act conferred power on the Court to appoint an arbitrator on an application made in that behalf. Section 20 conferred a wider jurisdiction on the Court fof directing th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document