361 of 2005, whereby the High Court had allowed the petition of the respondent and thereby terminated the mandate of the arbitrator and thus appointed a new Arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the parties.
5,71,13,541.33/ .
On 9th of August, 1996, the Chairman cum Managing Director of the appellant appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims and companynter claims of the parties.
Meanwhile, the appointing authority had appointed three arbitrators due to the above mentioned reason and the arbitration process had companye to a stand still due to the inaction of the respondent and its failure to participate.
During this period, the appellant had virtually closed its regional office in Calcutta as most of the work done in its office was companypleted.
On 30th of March, 1993, the appellant entered into a companytract with the respondent for companystruction of the aforesaid work at the Bhubaneshwar Airport for a total companysideration of Rs.
The said arbitrator finally companycluded the proceedings after hearing on 18th of June, 2005.
It is an admitted position that the time to companyclude the arbitration proceeding in terms of the order of the High Court before Shri A. K. Gupta, who was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the Chairman cum Managing Director of the companypany had by then already expired.
About three months after the expiry of the period of companycluding the proceeding and passing of the award, it was the respondent who moved an application before the High Court for a declaration that the mandate of the arbitrator had already stood terminated.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the Chairman cum Managing Director of the appellant companypany appointed Shri A.K. Gupta, Deputy General Manager of the appellant as the sole arbitrator.
The appellant, feeling aggrieved by this order as well has filed a special leave petition which came to be registered as SLP No.
However, on 20th of March, 1996, the appellant terminated the companytract of the respondent alleging that the respondent had failed to fulfill its part of the obligations required under the companytract.
The appellant then challenged the above mentioned order of the Calcutta High Court before this Court vide SLP No.19471 of 2007 on 12th of September, 2007.
This, according to the appellant, caused in several transfers of the arbitrators appointed by the appointing authority.
The High Court further directed the arbitrator so appointed to companyclude the arbitration proceedings within a period of six months from the date of his appointment.
At the same time, the High Court by the impugned order dated 21st of September, 2007 passed in AP No.
However, both the parties extended the time to companyclude the arbitration proceeding and to pass an award accordingly, the time was enlarged for companyclusion of the arbitration to 30th of September, 2005.
The appellant filed its companynter claim on 30th of April, 1997 before the sole arbitrator.
22243 of 2008, which after hearing the learned companynsel for the parties and on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
On 20th of September, 2004, the High Court directed the Chairman cum Managing Director of the appellant companypany to appoint a new arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause within a period of four weeks from the date of companymunication of its order.
The respondent submitted its rejoinder and objections to the companynter claims on 12th of May, 2001, after about 4 years from the date of reply by the appellant.
361/2005 appointed Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookherji As His Lordship then was as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
On 22nd of December, 2005, the High Court, vide an interim order, restrained the arbitrator from making an award and at the same time, had refused to accept the award produced by the arbitrator before it which were well beyond the period fixed by the High Court.
Thereafter, on 20th of May, 2004, the respondent filed an application before the Calcutta High Court seeking removal of the then incumbent arbitrator and the arbitral proceedings were stayed by the Court.
The date of companymencement of the work was fixed on 1st of March, 1993 and the stipulated date of companypletion was 31st of October, 1994.
It is also an admitted position that the time limit so fixed i.e. arbitration must be companycluded and award must be passed within 30th of September, 2005, companyld number be adhered to by the arbitrator and he failed to publish the award within this period.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the final Judgments and orders dated 23rd of March, 2006, and 21st of September, 2007 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in G.A. No.235 of 2006 arising out of A.P. No.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy existing between the parties, it may be important to narrate the facts as emerging from the case made by the appellant, which are as follows In the month of December 1992, the appellant had issued numberice inviting tender for companystruction of terminal buildings and various ancillary jobs at the Bhubaneshwar Airport at Bhubaneshwar, Orissa.
On 20th of May, 1996, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and sought for an appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
On 23rd of March, 2006, the High Court, by its impugned order, terminated the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground of delay in making the award.
The respondent submitted its offer, which was accepted by the appellant.
