Deviations from stipulated arbitration appointment procedures may be permitted under exceptional circumstances to ensure timely dispute resolution.

1. Leave granted. The counsel for the parties have been heard in detail in this appeal. In order to determine the controversy that is raised in this appeal, which is filed by the Union of India, challenging the decision dated 3-8-2011, U. P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India , 2011 SCC On Line Pat 323 : 2011 (108) AIC 676 of the High Court, minimal facts which require a mention, are the following: the appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent vide which contract for construction of guide bunds, foundation and substructure of rail bridge across River Ganges near Digha Ghat, Patna and the said agreement contained various terms and conditions. Clause 64(l)(ii) of the General Condition of Contract, 2001 (for short "GCC"), contained an arbitration clause that is provided for deciding the dispute between the patties through arbitration by an Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted in terms of the said agreement.

2. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to the said contract and on the request of the respondent an Arbitral Tribunal of the persons was constituted in the year 2007, in which all the members were Railway Authorities. It is a matter of regret that in spite of expiry of four years, the said Tribunal did not complete the arbitral proceeding and the matter kept hanging due to transfers / retirement / adjournments, etc.

3. The respondent felt exasperated due to the prolongation of the matter before the Arbitral Tribunal and chose to file Request Case No. 10 of 2010. Even at the time of filing of that case, there was a vacancy in the Arbitral Tribunal. When this case was taken up by the High Court on 9-3-2011, by that time, the appellant had filled up the said vacancy. Taking note thereof, the said petition was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 9-3-2011, U. P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India , Request Case No. 10 of 2010, order dated 9-3-2011 (Pat) giving the last chance to the Arbitral Tribunal to complete the arbitral proceeding within a period of three months with direction to hold regular sittings at Patna from the date of receipt / production of a copy of the said order. It was also stated in the order dated 9-3-2011, U. P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India , Request Case No. 10 of 2010, order dated 9-3-2011 (Pat) that if arbitration proceedings are not completed within the period fixed by the Court, the respondent would be at liberty to approach the Court again and the Court would be constrained to pass appropriate order in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

4. The Arbitral Tribunal was made aware of the said order as the copy thereof was produced before it on 25-3-2011. This means that it was supposed to complete the case by 25-6-2011. However, even within the said allotted time, the proceedings were not brought to an end and, therefore, the respondent filed Request Case No. 3 of 2011 dated 29-6-2011.

5. The appellant contested the aforesaid petition of the respondent on various grounds and also gave its own reasons because of which the Arbitral Tribunal would not complete the proceedings. It was also pointed out that though the Arbitral Tribunal was ready to hear the case of the parties and decide it finally on 22-7-2011, the respondent had informed the Tribunal of the filing of the said petition which led to the adjournment of the matter by the Tribunal.

6. The High Court took note of the various dates of hearings that are fixed by the Tribunal between 25-3-2011 and 25-6-2011 and came to the conclusion that delay cause