Hon'ble LODHA, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.10.01 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Arbitration Application No. 50/01 directing it to appoint Arbitrator on its behalf, the arbitration proceeding initiated by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in pursuant thereto and the award dated 13.12.04 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. In nutshell the relevant facts are that the petitioner institute which is a deemed to be university notified under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, invited the designs from Architects all over the country to develop university's new campus. After considering the various proposal received the design proposed by the respondent No. 2 M/s. Matharoo Associates was selected and accordingly, after deliberation and negotiation an agreement dated 24.5.93 was entered into with the respondent No. 2 for providing professional services for the project.

3. It was agreed upon between the parties under the agreement that the dispute arising shall be resolved by way of arbitration. Article 13 of the agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which reads as under:-

"Arbitration of all question in disputes under this Agreement shall be at the choice of the either party and shall be in accordance with the provisions, then, obtaining, of the Standard form of Arbitration procedure of the Indian Institute of Architects. This Agreement shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in the Court of the form state or federal having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrators shall be a condition precedent to the right of any legal action."

4. The respondent No. 2 served the petitioner with notice dated 19.8.97 and raised a claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.46,65,660/-. While invoking the arbitration clause, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No.2 that if it disputes the said claim, then, the matter be referred to arbitrator under Article 13 of the agreement dated 24.5.93. The respondent No. 2 proposed name of Shri Muzaffar Ali Khan as its nominated arbitrator and called upon the petitioner to appoint one arbitrator from its side. The petitioner having failed to nominate the arbitrator, the respondent No. 2 filed an application before the District Judge, Merta City, authority designate of the Chief Justice, praying that the petitioner be directed to propose and appoint one arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute.

5. The said application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. It is submitted that an objection with regard to jurisdiction specifically raised was not at all dealt with by the District Judge, Merta and the application preferred by the respondent No. 2 was allowed vide order dated 12.10.01 and while appointing Shri Muzaffar Ali as arbitrator on behalf of respondent No. 2, directed the petitioner for appointment of arbitrator on its behalf.

6. In pursuance of the order dated 12.10.01 the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted wherein the respondent No. 3(1) Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.L. Tibrewal (Retd.) was appointed as Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the respondent No. 3(2) Mr. Gulab Singh Bhandari and respondent No. 3 (3) Mr. Muzaffar Ali Khan were appointed as members of the said Tribunal.

7. The respondent No. 2 filed claim petition before the Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner submitted its preliminary objections about the maintainability of the arbitration proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal. It was stated therein that the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal by the District Judge, Merta was itself without jurisdiction inasmuch as the subject matter was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, Merta. A para wise reply to the claim petition was also filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

8. The objection about the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Merta for appointment of the arbitrator was rejected by the Arbitral Tribuna

Click Here to Read the rest of this document