Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3274
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Bihari Lal (Contractor) - Appellant
Versus
Chief Engineer U.P. Jal Nigam & Others - Respondent
Arbitration and Concili. Appl. No. - 71 of 2008
Decided On : 16-04-2014
For the Applicant :- Gulab Chandra,Amit Kumar Gaur,Y.S. Saxena
For the Opposite Party :- Paras Nath Singh,Vimlesh K.Rai
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties renders a dispute not referable to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Dispute Reference - No Arbitration Agreement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, sought reference of a dispute to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to non-payment of dues for the installation of Hand Pumps.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, as the petitioner failed to bring on record any contract or agreement containing an arbitration clause.
Issues: The main issue was the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, which rendered the dispute not referable to arbitration under Section 11 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 11 of the Act, which requires the existence of an arbitration agreement for reference of a dispute to arbitration. As there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, the dispute was not referable to arbitration.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim for reference of the dispute to arbitration due to the absence of an arbitration agreement.
Pankaj Mithal,J.
Case called out.
No one has appeared to press the petition.The petition was earlier dismissed twice for want of prosecution but the order was recalled.
2. In view of the above, I have gone through the pleadings in the petition.
3. The petitioner who is a contractor was awarded a contract for installation of Hand Pumps. On account of non payment of dues for the installation of the Hand Pumps, the petitioner had filed a writ petition no. 22135 of 2006 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.4.2006 with the direction that the petitioner may approach the authorities for the purposes of payment of his dues by way of a representation. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking reference of dispute to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. The petitioner has not brought on record any contract or agreement which contains an arbitration clause under which the dispute between the parties could be referred to arbitral tribunal. Petitioner has no where pleaded any arbitration agreement rather in paragraph 17 of the petition it has been stated that there is no arbitration clause for appointment of arbitrator.
5. Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties under which the dispute, if any, could be referred to arbitral tribunal.
6. Section 11 of the Act is attracted where the parties fails for appointing an arbitrator in accordance with the procedure laid-down for appointing the arbitrator in the contractgreement.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as there is no arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act between the parties, the dispute, if any, raised by the petitioner is not referable to arbitration under Section 11 of the Act.
8. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
