9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted bid(s) which was accepted by respondents. As per terms of contract the petitioner was entitled to a minimum order to the extent of 20% of the tender quantity. Tender Evaluation Committee evaluated the tender differently and finalised the allocation of order to petitioner to the extent of 27.60 LCKM leaving a shortfall of 8.4 LCKM. Further, the respondent withheld releasing 1.04 LCKM out of purchase order of 22.34 LCKM again leaving shortfall of 1.04 LCKM making the total shortfall of 14.7 LCKM. It is alleged that the action of respondents in not placing purchase order for the balance quantity was wholly mala fide . So, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1200/97 in this court but in view of arbitration clause appearing in tender document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disputes. 2. In the short reply filed on the affidavit of R.N. Bhagat, Assistant Director General (ST) it is stated that a decision has been taken on 4th October, 2001 to appoint R.K. Tyagi, G.M. (Dev.), Haryana Telecom Circle in place of Ram Kumar as arbitrator and the petition has, thus, been rendered infructuous. 3. In the rejoinder filed to reply on the affidavit of P.K. Sharma, Dy. Manager (Legal) of petitioner, it is stated that petitioner is not agreeable to the appointment of R.K. Tyagi as arbitrator as he has been monitoring OMP No. 251/01 filed by the Department against petitioner company challenging the award dated 7th August, 2000 made by Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.). 4. Order dated 3rd May, 2002 notices the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as arbitrator on the date notice dated 23rd March, 2001 demanding appointment of arbitrator was issued by the petitioner. In case Ram Kumar who has been replaced by R.K. Tyagi and again by Ram Narain, had failed to act without undue delay, as alleged, the remedy open to petitioner was to file petition under section 14(1)( a ) of the Act for his removal. Further, appointment of Ram Narain as arbitrator on 19th April, 2002 can be assailed by taking resort to challenge procedure as provided in section 13 of the Act alone and not in present petition. Datar Switchgears Ltd. s case ( supra ) has no applicability to the facts of this case. 6. Consequently, the petition is dismissed being without merit. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
