Re-call of the order passed by Honble Chief Justice or that of Single Judge not justified.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

The present writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant herein, who had challenged therein the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the administrative side.

2. The appellant had approached the Hon’ble Chief Justice against an order passed by the arbitral tribunal whereby, the arbitral Tribunal had refused to join the appellant has the party to the arbitration proceedings. This application to join the appellant as a party to the arbitral tribunal was made not by the appellant but by the first respondent herein M/s. Chokhani International Limited, Chennai. The appellant had approached the Hon’ble Chief Justice by way of two applications, A.Nos.5624 and 5720 of 2001. While by the first application, the appellant sought to be impleaded as a party and more particularly as the third respondent in O.P. No.972 of 1997 while by the other application, the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal were sought to be stayed. In the first mentioned application, the appellant prayed for the recall of the order passed by Justice Akbar Basha Khadri, delegate of the Hon’ble Chief Justice under Sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 25-6-1998 in O.P. No.972 of 1997 and for that purpose the appellant sought its impleadment in that original petition which was already disposed of by the aforementioned order passed by Justice Khadri. The Hon’ble Chief Justice dismissed both the applications and it was the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, which was challenged before the learned single Judge of this Court to which the reference has already been made in the opening paragraph of this judgment. The following facts will highlight the controversy.

3. The appellant is a foreign company, having its registered office at Panama. It claims to be the owner of the merchant vessels, m.v. Coromandel Clipper (formerly known as m.v. Mikhail Olminskiy) and m.v. Fedor Petrov. The second respondent herein, or as the case may be, one company known as M/s. Madan Shipping (Private) Limited, was the agent of the appellant, responsible for booking cargo and doing all port operations and the commercial operations for the territory of India.

3.1. The said two vessels required some repairs to be done at Chennai where, at the relevant time in the year 1996, the said two vessels were berthed. The said agent floated enquiries for the dry docking of the said vessels and received tentative quotations from the first respondent which had the dry docking facility in Chennai port. The initial enquiries were made by the first respondent from the second respondent M/s. D.B. Madan and Company and its sister concern M/s. Madan Shipping (Private) Limited as agents for the aforesaid two vessels.

3.2. The vessels were entrusted to the first respondent for dry-docking and effecting various repairs. The first vessel was entrusted on 31-8-1996, the repairs of which were completed by 17-10-1996 so also, the second vessel was entrusted on 27-9-1996 and the repairs were completed on 30-11-1996 though the repairs were agreed to be made within ten days of the delivery of the said vessels to the first respondent.

3.3. In the dispute that followed in respect of the repair charges, the said agent or as the case may be the second respondent raised several objections on the correctness of the same and claimed that the owner of the said vessels had suffered huge losses on account of repairing. The first respondent did not relent and exercised lien over the release of the said vessels. There were fresh talks between the first respondent and the second respondent and an agreement was entered into on 13-11-1996 by which, the first respondent agreed to accept certain amount in respect of the repairs done to the said two vessels while as regards the disputed amounts, respondents 1 and 2 agreed to appoint one arbitrator each and refe