ORDER :

The pivotal issue involved in the applications and the original petitions is the right of the respondent to reopen the arbitral proceedings by once again invoking the arbitral clause in an agreement that had been terminated as early as in the year 1993 and which had been invoked by the claimant to settle the dispute between them and the respondent, this dispute having culminated in an Award passed in the year 1996 and confirmed right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In short after an arbitral proceedings had culminated in an Award whether the respondent could reopen the Arbitral proceedings based on a finding in the Award.

2. Parties are referred to as the claimant and the respondent, as arrayed in the Arbitral proceedings.

3. Facts:

3.1. The facts in brief which would be germane for disposing of these applications are that the claimant was awarded the work of manufacturing, supplying, laying, jointing and testing of pre-stressed concrete pipes for water transmission main on a turnkey basis in two areas of Coimbatore and one area of Madurai city. The Coimbatore projects were termed as Coimbatore Reach I and Coimbatore Reach II respectively. The terms of the contracts stipulated that the contracts should be concluded within a period of two years. However, since the claimant's performance was dismal on 02.091991 the contracts were terminated by the respondent.

3.2. Thereafter, on the intervention of the Government, the termination order was revoked and two supplementary agreements dated 31.10.1992 and 12.11.1992 were entered into between the parties. This also did not help in improving the performance of the claimant and therefore by order dated 21.06.1993, the contracts were finally terminated.

3.3. The claimant moved three writ petitions before this Court in respect of all the three contracts to forbear the respondent from enforcing the penal conditions of the contract and collecting and invoking the bank guarantee. By order dated 07.12.1994, the Single Judge had directed the claimant to invoke the arbitral clause. This order was set aside by the Division Bench. Thereafter, in the proceedings in C.S.Nos.1916 to 1918 of 1994, this Court by order dated 19.07.1996 had appointed late Mr.Justice S. Sivasubramanian, a retired judge of this Court as the Arbitrator. The claimant had claimed a sum of Rs.20.48 crores under various heads and the respondent had also filed a counter claim for a sum of Rs. 21.88 crores. Ultimately, the learned Arbitrator allowed the claim filed by the claimant to the tune of Rs.7.50 crores with interest till the date of payment or till the date of decree.

3.4. The claimant had filed O.P.Nos.44 to 46 of 1998 directing the Arbitrator to file the Award into Court and requested the court to pass a decree in terms thereof. The respondent challenged the Award by filing O.P.Nos.77 to 79 of 1999. By order dated 16.06.2008, petitions filed by the respondent were dismissed and the petitions filed by the claimant in O.P.Nos.44 to 46 of 1998 were allowed and a decree was passed in terms of the Award. The respondent had challenged the order passed in O.P.No.44 to 46 of 1998 by filing OSA Nos.179 to 181 of 2009. The Appeals were dismissed by order dated 26.07.2016 and the respondent had challenged the same by filing the SLP Nos. 22894 to 22896 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court modified the Award only to the extent of reducing the interest rate to 9 per cent and extending the time for payment to 31.05.2018. Meanwhile, since disputes had arisen between the partners of the claimant firm, the respondent had filed A.No.6765 of 2018 to deposit the money into court. The respondent had also filed A.No. 4291 of 2018 for a direction to the claimant to execute the sale deed in respect of the lands scheduled in the petition thereto. This court by order dated 28.09.2018 in both the above applications directed the respondent to deposit the amounts into court and permitted the claimant to file necessary applicat