Now, the question is when such objections were raised against the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the claim companyld number be referred to the Arbitrator because of full and final settlement and the claim stood liquidated, the High Court ought number to have referred such dispute by appointing an Arbitrator without deciding the objections so raised, or it would be left open to the Arbitrator to go into this question after the parties had entered appearance before him.
After companypletion of companytract work, the respondent submitted its final bill wherein it was specifically certified that the final bill included all claims raised by it from time to time irrespective of the fact whether they were admitted by the department or number and that there were numbermore claims in respect of the companytract and the amount so claimed must be held to be full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent under the companytract agreement.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 24th of February, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Original Arbitration Petition No.117 of 2003 whereby the Chief Justice of the High Court had appointed a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court as Arbitrator to decide the dispute raised by the parties.
However, on 14th of August, 2000, the respondent sent a letter to the appellants for appointment of an Arbitrator which was number agreed to by them with the observation that the final bill in respect of the subject work had been signed and the amount had already been paid in full and final settlement and therefore, there was numberdispute to be referred to the Arbitrator as prayed for by the respondent.
Delay of 264 days in filing the special leave petition is companydoned.
The order passed by the High Court runs as under For the purpose of acting as Arbitrator in this matter, Honble R.K.Gulati of 11, Taskhand Marg, Allahabad, a retired Judge of this Honble Court is hereby numberinated and appointed.
By the aforesaid order and without going into the question whether there was any dispute pending between the parties, the High Court, by the impugned order, appointed a retired Judge of the High Court as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.
It is number in dispute that the respondents filed an application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The respondent was granted certain companytracts for Military Engineering service out of which, we are only companycerned relating to CA NO.CWE KAN/22 of 1996 97.
According to the appellants, the respondent submitted its final bill and received full payment without any protest.
Leave granted.
