Questioning the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that numberarbitration proceedings were pending when the Arbitration Tribunal under the Chhattisgarh Act begun functioning, learned companynsel referred to Annexure R 1 of his companynter which is a numberice dated 19th October,2004, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Office of the Development Commissioner, Bilaspur, in relation to the Agreement whereunder payments appear number to have been made in respect of the final bill which had been raised.
As it appears from the materials on record, the State Government of Chhattisgarh adopted the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam,1983, and restyled the same as Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam,1983, and the Arbitration Tribunal was companystituted by the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 with effect from 1st March,2005.
Learned companynsel also pointed out that since there was numberresponse from the Superintending Engineer, a further letter was addressed to the Chief Engineer, Office of the Development Commissioner, PMGSY, Raipur, on 6th April,2005 in respect of the same dispute and a prayer was made by the respondent for an opportunity of hearing in person to resolve the dispute.
On behalf of the respondent, it was pointed out that despite the fact that the Arbitration Tribunal had been companystituted in the State of Chhattisgarh with effect from 1st March,2005, the same did number function prior to 2nd September,2005, and it is during this period that the application was filed by the respondent before the High Court under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.
The respondent herein, along with others, filed six different applications before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, for appointment of arbitrators to adjudicate upon the disputes arising between the said parties and the State of Chhattisgarh before the Arbitration Tribunal under the Chhattisgarh Act began to function with effect from 2005.
According to the learned companynsel, there was numberresponse by the Chief Engineer as well and the respondent was, therefore, companystrained to move the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, before the Chhattisgarh High Court on 10th May,2005.
However, the said Tribunal, so companystituted by the State Government, started functioning only with effect from 2nd September,2005.
143 of 2005 has been challenged in this Court by way of Special Leave Petition C No.
In the said numberice it was specifically mentioned that the respondent was invoking his rights under clause 29 of the companyditions of the companytract.
The said applications were taken up by the High Court and appropriate orders were passed therein.
The said Tribunal, thereafter, ceased to have jurisdiction in the State of Chhattisgarh with effect from 1st November,2002.
It may be relevant to point out that out of the six applications allowed by the companymon order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, only one Special Leave Petition, namely, against MCC No.
The companytracts entered into between the parties provide for reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration.
