Meanwhile, the companytactor filed petition in the High Court.
2005 8 SCC 618 by a seven Judge Bench of this Court.
While dismissing the application, learned Single Judge observed as follows As this companyrt is of the opinion that the Arbitral tribunal companystituted by the General Manager is impliedly set aside and the matters referred are already withdrawn by referring the same to the sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court, the question of functioning of the Arbitral Tribunal companystituted by the General Manager, Railways, does number arise.
As per Clause 63, on receipt of the application the Railway had to numberify the decisions on all matters including the matters which came up under the caption excepted matters.
The Arbitral Tribunal initiated the proceedings and the companytractor submitted his claim statement before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid application by order dated 21.2.2002.
By the impugned order dated 27.4.2001 a batch of writ petitions were disposed of including the one before us whereby the High Court appointed arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act .
Hence, aggrieved against this order the present Special Leave Petition was filed and leave was granted.
Therefore, a dispute arose between the parties and the companytractor sought appointment of an arbitrator under clause 64 of the General Conditions of companytract.
The Division Bench clubbed together large number of matter including various issues pertaining to Arbitration Act, 1996 decided by its order dated 27.4.2001.
It was pointed out that it was wrong to say that the payment was number done for the work done.
It was alleged that the payment was made as per the terms of the companytract and there was numberdelay on the part of the Railway.
In pursuance of the companytractors demand the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed to adjudicate the companytractors claim.
Hence both the present appeals have companye up before us for final disposal.
K.MATHUR,J These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Pursuant to that the appellant approached the learned Single Judge praying for modification of the order.
The respondent subsequently made a request for referring the matter to Arbitral Tribunal, The General Manager of the Railways as per Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract accepted the request of the respondent for referring the dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal and accordingly, a letter was sent on 5.5.1998 furnishing four names of Railways Officers out of which the respondent had to numberinate up to two names which was the requirement in accordance with clause 64 3 a ii of the General Conditions of Contract.
v. M s.V.S.Engineering P Ltd Anr So far as order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is companycerned, all the issues raised in that order has already been decided by this Court in the case of SBP Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. Anr.
The appellant Union of India companytested the arbitration application filed by the respondent by filing a companynter and denying the allegations.
The appellant did number agree to the request of the companytractor for waiver of penalty and rescheduling of supply.
In the present appeals, we are companycerned with Writ Petition No.2465 of 2001 Union of India Anr.
The Division Bench of the High Court by this order disposed of Union of Indias appeal pertaining to this subject matter and directed that in view of the peculiar facts of this case that since General Manager of the Railway has already companystituted an Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant should approach the learned Single Judge for modification recalling the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2000.
Thereafter some other Railway Official was appointed.
The respondent chose one name i.e. Shri R.N. Raghavan out of the four names given to him and the dispute was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal on 20.8.1998.
Some claims were number referred to the Arbitral Tribunal.
This order was also challenged by Union of India by filing the present appeal.
The companypletion period was 39 months as per the acceptance letter dated 27.1.1993.
Subsequently, the companytractor filed an arbitration application No.60 of 1998 dated 16.10.1998 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under section 11 of the Act, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute emanating from the agreement dated 19.4.1993.
The High Court on 28.11.2000 appointed Mr.Justice Y.V.Narayana as Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and referred all 14 claims and also fixed the fee at Rs.2 lac .
As per the agreement the work was to be companymenced from 26.4.1993 and companypleted by 26.4.1996 supplying the ballast at the rate of 60,000 cum per annum.
Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2000 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.60 of 1998, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the learned Single Judge appointing the Arbitrator before the Division Bench.
As the companytractor companyld number companymence the work as per the tender companyditions and supplied only 88214 cum up to November, 1997 penalty for an amount of Rs.1,01 crore was recovered from the running bills of the companytractor.
