An application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable despite previous delays, as no arbitral proceedings were initiated under the old Act.

ORDER :

1. The present application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator in lieu of non-adherence to the terms and conditions of a tender and rate contract issued by the respondents for manfuacturing and supply of furniture at Maharajpura, by the respondents.

2. Short facts leading to the present application are that the present applicant had entertained into a contract agreement no.CWE (P)/MJR/03 of 86-87 for manufacturing and supply of furniture. As per the agreement a period for completion for the contract for both group A and group B was fixed as six months and in case only one group was accepted, then the period of completion was reckoned as four months. Further all the articles given in the schedule-A was required to be supplied within the period of completion as mentioned above. In the said agreement there was an arbitration clause and as per the said clause in the event of a dispute arising between the parties in relation to an event touching the terms of the contract, the parties shall be referred to an arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Chief Engineer and as a dispute with regard to payment arose, present applicant moved an application under Section 8 of the ARBITRATION ACT , 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator. Though the said application was not maintainable, the Court hearing the said application directed Chief Engineer to appoint arbitrator as per terms of the agreement and the Chief Engineer in lieu of said order had appointed one Vimal Dutta as Arbitrator. However, the Eighth Additional District Judge cancelled the appointment of Vimal Dutta vide order dated 10.05.1994 which was challenged by respondent/Union of India in M.A. No.136/1994 in which the execution of the operation of the order passed by the Eighth Additional District Judge dated 10.05.1994, whereby the appointment of Vimal Dutta, Arbitrator was cancelled, was stayed. The said arbitrator entered into reference on 09.07.1994 and though the claim was submitted by Union of India the present applicant refrained from submitting its claim and prayed postponement of the hearing and, thereafter, on 22.02.1996 one Shri D.K. Dinker, CWE (AF) Chakeri, Kanpur was appointed as the Arbitrator. Shri Dinker also resigned as an Arbitrator on 09.07.1996 and in his place one S.K. Agarwal CWE (AF) Chakeri, Kanpur was appointed as an Aribtrator. In the meanwhile, the M.A. No.136/1994 preferred at the behest of respondent/Union of India challenging the appointment of Vimal Dutta as an Arbitrator was disposed of vide order dated 24.06.2003 with the direction to the Eighth Additional District Judge to decide the application under Section 20 of the Act of 1940, pending before it as expeditiously as possible. Though panel of Arbitrator was called for appointment, but no Arbitrator could be appointed till February, 2008 as the present applicant failed to submit the list before the Court. Constrained, the Court directed to appoint the Arbitrator from the panel list submitted by the respondents/Union of India and disposed of the application of petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator vide order dated 14.10.2005.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents (Union of India) appointed Shri Arul Dhas, S.E as Arbitrator who entered into reference vide order dated 12.03.2008, but an objection was raised on behalf of the present applicant. On 06.10.2008, Shri A. Arul Dhas, Arbitrator again entered into reference and asked the present applicant to submit statement of claim, but present applicant challengi