9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appointment of a sole Arbitrator, non-compliance with court order, delay in arbitral proceeding.
Appointment of Sole Arbitrator: The petitioner filed a request case for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator due to the failure of the respondents and the current arbitral tribunal to comply with the court order. The history of the arbitration matter dates back to 2007, involving a dispute over a construction agreement for a Rail Bridge. Despite specific directions from the court to complete the arbitral proceeding within three months, the arbitral tribunal failed to do so, leading to the filing of the instant request case in 2011. Non-Compliance with Court Order: The arbitral tribunal, constituted in 2007, did not complete the arbitral proceeding even after four years, citing reasons such as transfers, retirements, and adjournments. Despite a court order granting three months to complete the arbitration, the tribunal did not hold regular sittings as directed, leading to intentional delays and non-compliance with court orders. The court found the tribunal's actions to be disobedient and dilatory, ultimately setting aside the current tribunal and appointing a sole Arbitrator to expedite the process. Delay in Arbitral Proceeding: The delay in the arbitral proceeding was deemed intentional, with the tribunal members displaying a negligent and ineffectual attitude towards their duties. Long adjournments were granted, violating court directions, and members were often unavailable, causing further delays. The court criticized the tribunal for its ineptitude and lack of regard for the law, leading to the appointment of a new sole Arbitrator to ensure a swift resolution without undue adjournments. Separate Judgment: Justice U.P. Singh was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the arbitral proceeding, with directions for both parties to approach the Arbitrator promptly. The remuneration and expenses for the Arbitrator were to be borne entirely by the East Central Railway and its authorities, given the undue harassment faced by the petitioner over the four-year period of the dispute.
|
