The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the amended Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which governs the grounds for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator and ensures the independence and impartiality of the arbitration process.

JUDGMENT

Fateh Deep Singh, J. - The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing on account of lockdown due to outbreak of pandemic COVID-19.

2. M/S J & K Project Construction Corporation Limited (petitioner before the Court below, in short 'the Corporation') is a Company incorporated under the Jammu and Kashmir Companies Act 1977 and is primarily carrying on business of execution of civil works. The Northern Railways (respondents before the Court below, in short 'the Railways') with Head Quarters at New Delhi flouted tenders for inviting applications in regard to blanketing with river bed material from Chakki river and earthwork in formation, embankment and cutting including mechanical compaction and construction of minor bridges of RCC boxes, RCC slabs, hume pipes and other allied works between Cholang to Mukerian to facilitate doubling Jalandhar Cantt-Pathankot-Jammu Section of the Railways.

3. In pursuance of this, a written contract was executed between the parties on 26.02.2004. It is worthwhile to mention here that respondents have enacted through its Engineering Department Works Hand Book enumerating the regulations of tenders/contracts as well as general conditions of the contract. Under the same, by way of Clause 64(7) provides for appointment of Arbitrator in case of any dispute arising out of such contract, which would be governed by the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and Rules (in short 'the Act') framed thereunder. Further with the stipulation that any statutory modification thereof shall apply to the Arbitral proceedings by way of this clause.

4. During the course of time, a dispute arose between the Corporation and the Railways. As a consequence of which it is alleged that the Railways rescinded the contract and encashed the bank guarantee of the Corporation. As the history of the litigation between the parties goes, the Corporation filed a civil writ petition before this Court which stood disposed off vide order dated 12.03.2013 with the liberty to the Corporation to invoke the arbitration proceedings in view of the general conditions of contract. It is in between the railways are alleged to have allotted the work to another party which stands completed. Under clause 64(3)(a)(ii), the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of panel of three gazetted railways officers was constituted and during the course of proceedings vide proceedings dated 25.10.2017, the Railways re-constituted Arbitral Tribunal and appointed Shri S.K. Mishra, Presiding Arbitrator being Chief Engineer, Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, Executive Director, Ex. Chief Engineer and Ms. Preeti Jha, General Manager, FA & CAO/Traffic, Northern Railway.

5. Aggrieved over the manner of the Arbitral Tribunal's proceedings, the Corporation filed a petition under Section 14 read with Section 15 the Act seeking declaration that mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by virtue of its constituents stands terminated in respect of dispute between the parties in the light of this contract and, thus, sought setting aside of all the proceeding orders by the Arbitral Tribunal in relation to this contract between the parties for holding that the Arbitral Tribunal is de-jure and de-facto unable to perform its functions.

6. Upon due process the Court of learned Additional District Judge Hoshiarpur vide impugned orders dated 09.10.19 allowed the application of the Corporation and further that Arbitral Tribunal de-jure is rendered unable to perform its functions. It is in the light of this order, the Railways has come in this revision petition by invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of this order of the Court below (Annexure P-8) as well as seeking any other orders/directions by this Court, in the interest of justice.

7. Heard Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Adovcate for the petitioners and Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate for the respondent and perused the records.

8. It is well writ large on the records and is too fairly conceded to at bar by Mr. Rajiv