The Reference Court retains jurisdiction to address subsequent applications after appointing arbitrators, allowing additional claims related to ongoing arbitration.

ORDER

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners - Corporation and Mr. Arpith, learned counsel representing Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 05.12.2011 in I.A. No. 338 of 2011 in O.S. No. 545 of 1989 [hereinafter “impugned order”] passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad [hereinafter “the Reference Court”].

3. This is an unfortunate case where the Respondent had invoked arbitration proceedings in 1989. However, due to the present proceedings and such other previous proceedings initiated by the Corporation, the arbitration proceedings remained pending.

4. The Petitioners are the Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘corporation’). The Respondent is a private contractor. The facts in brief are that, pursuant to a tender floated by the Corporation, the Respondent was selected as a contractor to construct the “Acute Medicare and Trauma Complex” at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. Accordingly, a Work Order dated 04.04.1987 was issued to the Respondent to begin the construction works. Pursuant to such Work Order, the Respondent claims to have paid the EMD and to have invested huge sums of money. However, the Respondent alleges that the corporation had not handed over the site. As there was a delay in handing over the site, the Respondent claims to have addressed letters to the corporation. In reply to which, he was informed that the site was shifted from Gandhi Hospital to Musheerabad Jail. This was followed by other letters dated 16.06.1988 and 22.06.1988 whereby the corporation informed the Respondent that the site for construction of “Acute Medicare and Trauma Complex” was not finalized and that the Work Order dated 04.04.1987 was cancelled.

5. Contending that the unilateral termination / cancellation of the Work Order dated 04.04.1987 was illegal as huge investments were already made, the Respondent addressed a letter dated 13.07.1988 seeking the disputes to be referred to an arbitrator. As the Corporation did not agree for the reference, the Respondent had filed O.S. No. 545 of 1989 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 [hereinafter “the Act of 1940”].

6. Initially, O.S. No. 545 of 1989 filed for appointment of Arbitrator was dismissed by the Reference Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred an appeal vide AAO No.621 of 1994. Vide judgment dated 10.03.2000, learned Single Judge, allowed the said appeal setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1993 and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to appoint an Arbitrator holding that there was concluded contract existed between the parties. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 10.03.2000 of learned Single Judge, the Corporation preferred LPA No. 168 of 2000 before the Division Bench. Vide judgment dated 13.03.2003, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge attained finality. Pursuant to the judgment of learned Single Judge, the Reference Court appointed Sri Justice Ranga Rao, Former Judge of High Court as an Arbitrator. The Corporation instead of obeying the orders of the learned Single Judge, filed a