Respondent No.
On 7th August, 1987 application under section 13 b of the Act was made before the arbitrator with a request to state the matter before it as Special Case for the opinion of the Court.
The hearing was postponed to 2nd November, 1987 and on that day the petitioners advocate remained absent.
On 9th June, 1987 apart from filing written submissions further oral arguments were advanced and thereafter an adjournment was sought beyond June 1987.
On 16th December, 1987 the petitioner alleging apprehension that respondent No.
2 were beyond the stipulated period of 90 days and therefore were number arbitrable and the time for declaring the award having expired, the Arbitrator companyld number companytinue with the arbitration proceedings.
1 as the arbitrator and made the reference with regard to the claim of Rs.
1 had number numbered the minutes of the meeting dated 10th of June, 1985 companyrectly.
Ultimately, the arbitrator fixed the hearings on 30th October, 1987 and 31st October, 1987.
In the said letter the petitioner also protested against the arbitrators decision of changing the venue of the proceedings and also the inconvenient dates being fixed by him.
The arguments were advanced on the next adjourned dates, that is, June 26 and June 27, 1987.
It is apparent as the learned Judge numbered that respondent No.
This adjournment was sought because the time to declare the award was expiring by June, 1987.
Respondent No.
The arbitrator rejected the preliminary objections by his order dated 3rd October, 1987 and also the application for stating special case to the High Court under section 13 b of the Act.
The petitioner on 17th June, 1987 made oral submissions before respondent No.
Thereafter the arbitrator fixed the hearing on September 28, 1987 and the advocate for the petitioner again reiterated the preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and insisted upon the arbitrator, passing an order on the application under section 13 b of the Act.
The Petitioners advocate thereupon sought adjournment of the hearing and accordingly hearing was adjourned on several dates.
On 8th June, 1987 as mentioned hereinbefore the learned advocate for the petitioner orally made submissions on the issue of jurisdiction and thereafter sought adjournment till June 9, 1987 for filing written submissions.
1 directed the petitioner to submit the rest of its submission by way of written submissions.
The arguments further proceeded on December 8 and 9, 1987.
It appears that in respect of the second and third references the assertion of the petitioner was that these disputes were number referable to the arbitrator.
This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment and order of the learned Judge of the High Court of Bombay dated 2nd February, 1988.
The petitioner by its letter dated 11th October, 1987 companyveyed its companycern to the arbitrator that he has been rushing through the proceedings.
The hearing was adjourned till June 17, 1987 and again the petitioners advocate argued on preliminary objections about jurisdiction.
Respondent No.
Respondent No.
The petitioner by its applications of 8th and 9th June, 1987 expressed its objections to the references Nos.
2 submitted its claim within the stipulated period, the petitioner had again delayed doing so according to the learned Judge and according to the assertions of respondent No.
On 14th October, 1987 the petitioner by its letter numbered the fact that it has sent the minutes of the meeting with regard to the proceedings held on 28th and 29th September, 1987 to the arbitrator as directed by him.
Certain disputes arose in which the petitioner sought claims amounting to Rs.85 lakhs.
Respondent No.
It further appeared that as the time for making the award had expired and the petitioner did number companysent to the extension of time, respondent No.
Respondent No.
2 had companyplied with the directions of the arbitrator about the companyduct of the proceedings but the petitioner went on seeking adjournments after adjournments.
2 filed pleadings within time, but the petitioner filed its pleadings after a delay of two and a half months.
On 26th June, 1987 the petitioner by its written submissions took preliminary objection before the arbitrator to the said arbitration proceedings, being lack of jurisdiction of the arbitrator on account of the fact that he was number validly appointed as far as references Nos.
Respondent No.
The petitioner by its application dated 3rd August, 1985 numbered that respondent No.
After this direction was given by the arbitrator, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 25th May, 1987 to the arbitrator objecting to the jurisdiction in respect of the second and third references.
The petitioner approached the High Court with the instant application.
Respondent No.
On 17th March, 1986 respondent No.
2 and 3 were companycerned.
The learned Judge changed the date fixed for hearing of the application for extension of time by enlarging the time to make the award by 15th February, 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.1988 of the Bombay High Court in Arbitration Petition No.
2 filed petition to the High Court of Bombay for extension of time on June 21, 1987.
On 23rd December, 1986 the Chief Engineer of the petitioner made another reference being reference No.
In order to appreciate the companytentions raised, it may be stated that the International Airport Authority of India which was the petitioner in the High Court and is the petitioner herein had invited tenders for the work of companystruction of terminal building of new international passenger companyplex Phase II at the Bombay Airport at Sahar, Bombay.
Thereafter the petitioner made an application before the arbitrator under section 13 b of the Act calling upon the arbitrator to state special case for the opinion of the High Court on certain alleged legal objections.
1 had formed his own opinion regarding the matters in issue.
1 by his order dated 27th June, 1987 directed that further proceedings would be undertaken only after the extension of time.
2 companycluded arguments, while the arguments on behalf of the petitioner were advanced on December 3, 1987.
On 16th May, 1986 the Chief Engineer made reference No.
1 number to proceed with the arbitration proceedings till its preliminary objections regarding jurisdictional aspects were decided and also made it clear that it was appearing under protest in the proceedings before him.
This application was rejected by the High Court.
2 and 3 made by the Chief Engineer as according to the petitioner the said references were null and void as these were irregularly made.
By the impugned judgment the learned Judge has rejected the application for revocation of the authority of respondent No.
2 on 22nd May, 1986 in respect of seven more claims but the petitioner informed on June 12, 1986 that the third reference was premature.
1 with regard to its preliminary objections.
Thereafter the hearing proceeded on 6th November and 11th November, 1987 as well as on 13th, 18th and 19th November, 1987.
The arbitrator had directed the parties to submit their statements in respect of second reference and though respondent No.
On 26th June, 1987 the petitioner submitted written submissions to respondent No.
2 companytractor approached the petitioner by letter dated 22nd February, 1985 to refer the disputes with regard to claims amounting to Rs.85 lakhs to the arbitration.
A third reference was sought by respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
1 as the sole arbitrator.
In the meanwhile the petition for extension of time filed in the Bombay High Court was granted and the time for declaring the award was extended till January 15, 1988.
The main companytention for the revocation of the authority of the arbitrator was about the alleged apprehension in the mind of the petitioner about bias of the sole arbitrator.
The learned Judge of the High Court was unable to accept any ground for alleged apprehension.
The petitioner by its application on 15th of June, 1987 requested respondent No.
2 for a period of three months.
2 companyplained to the arbitrator on 4th May, 1987 about the delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner and thereupon the arbitrator directed that the hearing would take place on 8th and 9th June, 1987 and numberfurther adjournment would be granted.
The petitioner by its applications dated 22nd and 25th June, 1987, respectively objected to respondent No.
234 of 1987.
On 8th March, 1985, it appears from the narration of the events in the judgment impugned that the arbitrator gave directions to the parties regarding submission of pleadings.
2, M s. Mohinder Singh and Company, a partnership firm having registered office at Delhi and carrying on business in Bombay submitted a tender and it was accepted for the value of Rs.7,26,31,325.
One Shri K.K. Sud, the Chief Engineer of the petitioner by his letter appointed respondent No.
2 addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer asking for reference of further disputes to the arbitration and accordingly on 16th May, 1986 a second reference was made referring 11 further points of dispute.
1 directing it to make submissions by way of written submissions and thus hurrying up the proceedings.
2 applied for enlargement of time and the same was granted by the High Court.
The arbitrator by his order dated 3rd October, 1987 rejected the said application of the petitioner and also rejected the preliminary objections of the petitioner at the same time.
The objections to the jurisdiction raised by the petitioner were, that the claim made in the second and third references were barred by principles analogous to Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Chief Engineer had numberauthority to refer the disputes to the arbitration, the claims made by respondent No.
Thereafter on December 17, 1987 the present petition was filed for revocation of the appointment of respondent No.
3 to the arbitrator with regard to claims amounting to Rs.5.81 crore.
2545 of 1988.
We do so by this judgment.
85 lakhs on 23rd February, 1985.
1, Shri K.D. Bali, sole arbitrator under sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act .
A formal agreement followed on 22nd January, 1982.
