9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bitral tribunal to arbitrate and decide the disputes and differences between the parties because the respondents and the arbitral tribunal appointed by them have failed to comply even the order of this Court dated 09.03.2011 passed in Request Case No. 10 of 2010. 3. This case has a very long history as the matter of arbitration is pending since 2007. The admitted facts are that there was an agreement between the parties for construction of guide bunds, foundation and substructure of Rail Bridge across river Ganges near Digha Ghat, Patna and the said agreement contained the terms and conditions. As per Clause 24 of the Special Conditions of the Contract (General) read with Clause 64(1)(ii) of the General Conditions of Contract, 2001, an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to approach this Court and if the facts claimed by the petitioner were found to be true, this Court would be constrained to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act for the sake of brevity ). A copy of the said order was produced before the arbitral tribunal by the petitioner on 25.03.2011 and hence the period, granted by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2011, was to expire on 25.06.2011. But when the arbitral proceeding was not completed by the arbitral tribunal within that period, the petitioner was constrained to file the instant Request Case No. 03 of 2011 on 29.06.2011, 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3, in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for submitting their counter reply, which was against the specific directions of this Court dated 09.03.2011 that the parties shall not take any undue adjournment. In addition to that, the Co-arbitrator Shri B. K. Singh also proceeded to attend one month AMP course at Baroda Staff College and hence the proceeding was adjourned to 10.06.2011 i.e. after fifty days. 8. Subsequently when the arbitral proceeding was taken up on 10.06.2011, another Co-arbitrator Shri Bijay Kumar was reported to have gone on sanctioned leave for 45 days and the other Co-Arbitrator Shri B. K. Singh also did not turn up for hearing on that date. Hence it was observed by the arbitral tribunal on 10.06.2011 that the next date of hearing would be fixed in due cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not available and they saw to it that the time of three months granted by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2011 is expired. This attitude of the arbitral tribunal clearly amounts to disobedience of the specific directions of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2011 passed in Request Case No. 10 of 2010. 11. All these facts also disclose a very sorry state of affairs that the members of the arbitral tribunal are inept ineffectual by any standard, completely negligent towards their duties and having no sanctity for any law or for the orders of the High Court, which are binding upon them. All the training courses etc. imparted to them have clearly proved to be wastage of public exchequer, which comes from the hard earned money of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
