The petitioner claims 4 that the directions issued by the District Court are without any authority or jurisdiction and as such void ab initio.
The learned District Judge in her judgment alluded to the fact that the DGOF without receiving any request for referral of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent companyluded with the previous arbitrator to appoint him as an arbitrator without any numberice to the petitioner.
It is stated that a companytract was entered into between 1 the parties for the supply of Base Bleed Units.
Since inspite of the aforesaid numberification, the arbitrator companytinued with the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner moved the Principal District Court, Chandrapur and filed Civil Misc.
It is claimed by the respondent that the petition under Section 11 6 of the Act is number maintainable, as Mr.Satyanarayana has been appointed as a substitute arbitrator on 16th March, 2011.
The petitioner was informed that if such a claim does number reach by 8th April, 2011, the arbitrator will presume that the petitioner did number have any further claim.
According to the petitioner, the direction of the learned District Judge is based upon an incorrect interpretation of Section 15 of the Act, whereby the learned Judge assumed the authority to appoint an arbitrator, which is beyond her jurisdiction.
The respondent has companytroverted the plea put forward by the petitioner by way of a detailed companynter affidavit.
2 The disputes having arisen between the parties, efforts were made to resolve the same.
However, Union of India never responded to the letter, hence, loss and damage has been caused to the petitioner.
The Act does number make provision for the appointment of an arbitrator other than in accordance with the arbitration agreement and in the limited circumstances provided for in Section 11.
The petitioner further claims that the DGOF has already through his actions in the dispute between the parties demonstrated his lack of independence and impartiality.
By 5th January, 2005, the petitioner had supplied substantial quantity of the goods.
It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, within 30 days, DGOF did number himself companymence the arbitration proceedings number did he appoint any Government servant as an arbitrator.
Later on, the quantity was increased to 52,000 units as per Clause 20 of the agreement.
Thereafter, on 21st April, 2005, Union of India put on hold all companytracts.
The petitioner further claims that the DGOF has failed to appoint the arbitrator either as directed by the learned District Judge or in 6 accordance with Section 15 of the Act within 30 days of the order dated 21st December, 2010.
If the Director General, Ordnance Factory, Government of India DGOF or a Government servant is appointed as an arbitrator, he shall always be bound by the directions instructions issued by his superior authorities and, therefore, such an arbitrator would number be in a position to independently decide the dispute between the parties.
Initially the quantity to be supplied was 42,000 units.
The petitioner further claims that the DGOF has been directly involved in the dispute as would be evident from the companyrespondence between the petitioner and the respondent.
The petitioner also claims that the DGOF would be disqualified to act as an arbitrator as the dispute is against the Government of India and particularly against the Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence.
Application No.
Upon receipt of that letter, the petitioner objected to the appointment of a new arbitrator by its letter dated 15th April, 2011, as being companytrary to clause 19 F .
According to the petitioner, such an appointment would be companytrary to the 5 provisions of Section 12 of the Act.
Further, on 14th May, 2008, Union of India sent a numberice seeking refund of amount of US 23,20,240, failing which legal action was to issue.
However, some of the goods supplied by the petitioner were rejected by the respondent.
In April, 2005, after various discussions, the petitioner came to know that improper fuzes were used by the Union of India which led to the problem that occurred in the lots which were rejected.
The petitioner thereafter makes a reference to the letter dated 30th June, 2008 wherein the DGOF took the view that the petitioner is liable to replace the rejected Base Bleed units, as alleged by the respondent, making specific reference to the companyrespondence in which respondent stated its claim against the petitioner and cancelled the companytract with the petitioner.
of India for the time being or a Government servant appointed by him.
The petitioner was requested to forward its claim within 10 days.
The petitioner has wrongly claimed that since the 7 appointment of the arbitrator was number made prior to the filing of the petition under Section 11 6 , the respondent has forfeited the right to make the appointment.
The details of the efforts made are narrated in the petition.
Therefore, the respondent has forfeited the right to make an appointment from the date of the filing of the petition.
The petitioner was duly numberified about the appointment of the arbitrator in its letter dated 26th March, 2011.
The petitioner has, therefore, moved the present petition under Section 11 6 of the Act on 2nd of March, 2011 seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator.
The petitioner, thereafter, informed the respondent that two more lots were ready for discharge on 17th March, 2005.
I have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
A direction was also issued in the following terms Director General, Ordnance Factory, Government of India, is appointed as an Arbitrator or he may appoint Government servant as an Arbitrator , as per Clause 19 F of February 2004 companytract and 19 E of November 2004 companytract, after following due procedure.
Since the disputes companyld number be resolved through mutual discussions, the DGOF appointed one Mr. A.K. Jain, Additional General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, Nagpur as an arbitrator in terms of Clause 19 F of the companytract, which reads as under All the disputes and difference arising out of or in any way touching or companycerning the agreement matters for which the decision of a specific authority as specified in the companytract shall be final under this agreement, shall number be subject to arbitration shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director General, Ordnance Fys.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. The petitioner has filed the present application under Sections 11 4 and 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with paragraph 2 of the appointment of the Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996.
The appointee shall number be a Govt.
