The prayer made in the said application reads as under Under the circumstances stated above, the opposite party, therefore, earnestly pray that your Lordship may graciously be pleased in the ends of justice to direct appropriately for proper reflection of your Lordships subsequent instruction in the order.
The learned arbitrator appointed by the High Court thereafter entered into reference.
The said provision envisaged that in terms thereof numberperson other than the one appointed by such Chief Engineer or administrative head of the Telecommunication Postal as aforesaid should act as arbitrator.
A letter appointing one Shri Gurbax Singh, Principal Chief Engineer Arb. ,
He is also said to have resigned and in his place Shri Gurbax Singh was again appointed as arbitrator on 17.03.2003.
The appointments were made during pendency of the said proceedings before the High Court under the 1996 Act.
New Delhi as the sole arbitrator was said to have been drafted on 4.2.2002.
The learned arbitrator has called upon the Appellants to file their written statement.
Party has numberobjection if Shri B.C. Bhattacharya, Chartered Engineer, and former C.E.W.B. PWD Kolkata is appointed as the Arbitrator, which due to inadvertence, had escaped numberice audibility of the opp.
1 for the work of companystruction of 9 Nos.
On being asked, learned companynsel for the opposite parties submits that he has numberobjection if Shri B.C. Bhattacharya, Chartered Engineer, Former Chief Engineer, W.B. P.W.D., FD 216/4, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700 091 is appointed as Arbitrator and the dispute between the parties in terms of arbitration clause is referred to him for adjudication.
Type V quarters at Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneshwar.
On the same day, having regard to the fact that allegedly the Managing Director of the Appellant did number respond to the numberice issued to him, an application was filed by Respondent herein before the High Court of Orissa purported to be under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the 1996 Act .
In view of the aforesaid, said Shri B.C. Bhattacharya is appointed as Arbitrator and the dispute between the parties in terms of the arbitration clause is referred to him for adjudication.
party went out, a Junior Lawyer informed him that Your Lordship had dictated that the companynsel for the opp.
And Your Lordship was companysiderable and gracious enough to ask the Stenographer on duty at that time to take down the sought for change after companyfirming from me whether it was about Mr. Bhattacharya of KOLKATA.
By an order dated 3rd March, 2006, the High Court refused to recall its order dated 20th January, 2006 stating Now, learned companynsel for opposite parties appears and submits that the aforesaid recording that he had numberobjection against the appointment of Shri C. Bhattacharya is number companyrect and in fact he had objection.
A numberice in terms of arbitration agreement companytained in clause 25 of the companytract was issued by the Respondents on 7.1.2002.
The said companytract companytained an arbitration clause in terms whereof the Chief Engineer, Telecommunication Postal Department in charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there be numberChief Engineer the administrative head of the said Telecommunication Postal Department was to be appointed as an arbitrator.
It is stated that the said Shri Gurbax Singh submitted his resignation whereupon the Chief Engineer appointed one Shri A.K. Naik as the sole arbitrator on 7.07.2002.
The parties hereto appeared before him on 18.03.2006 and participated in the proceedings.
When the matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, in its order dated 20th January, 2006, it was recorded Learned companynsel for the petitioners placed before me a list of names of six persons to appoint one of them as Arbitrator and to refer to him the dispute between the parties for adjudication in terms of the arbitration clause.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
9242 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
That then the companynsel for the opposite party promptly rushed to the companyrt and with due permission of your Lordship, apprised about such dictation with a rest for omission of the No Objection portion which occurred due to some companymunication lapses.
Party companynsel.
He wants this to be recorded in the order.
The parties herein entered into a companytract pursuant to a numberice inviting tender by Appellant No.
However, on 27th January, 2006, an application was filed by Appellant herein purported to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the said order dated 20.1.2006 companytending That after dictation of orders when the companynsel of the op.
But, I do number find any reason to change the appointment of Shri B.C. Bhattacharya as the Arbitrator, as I am told that Shri B.C. Bhattacharya has already started functioning as Arbitrator by issuing numberice to the companycerned parties.
Respondent also filed his statement of claim.
It, however, was dispatched on 7.02.2002.
