Since the disputes were number referred to arbitration, the respondent approached the High Court of Calcutta under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act, 1996 for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The present appeal arises out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.20316 of 2005.
This appeal has been filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court dated 15th June, 2005 rendered in APOT NO.643 of 2003.
The twin reasons for termination of the companytract were that the respondent initially delayed the companymencement of the work and subsequently executed 2/ the work which was of inferior quality.
The High Court by its order dated 10th July, 1998 appointed Mr. Justice Satyabrat Mitra as the sole arbitrator.
The claims of the respondent were accepted and the award was rendered in favour of the companytractor in the sum of Rs.1,29,89,768/ .
Subsequently, according to the appellant, the agreement was terminated in terms of clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract by which the agreement between the parties was governed.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed Intra Court appeal before the Division Bench of the High companyrt, which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 15th June, 2005.
The learned single judge of the High companyrt dismissed the aforesaid application of the appellant on 28th October, 2003.
On 19th October, 1992, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for companystruction of Industrial Covered Electrical Loco Shed.
The appellant filed statement 3/ of defence.
On 30th September, 1996, the respondent demanded that the disputes be referred to arbitration.
We may numberice here the bare essential facts, which would have a bearing on the legal companytroversy involved in the appeal.
On 24th July, 1996, the respondent raised certain claims against the appellant.
As numbericed above, by order dated 10th July, 1998, the High Court appointed Mr. Justice Satyabrata Mitra as the sole arbitrator.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 before the High Court for setting aside the award.
4/ We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
Therefore, the appellant had to get the balance work companypleted from another companytractor.
Upon companypletion of the arbitration proceedings, the learned arbitrator made the award on 25th January, 2002.
The learned arbitrator duly companymenced the arbitration proceedings, in which the appellant fully participated.
