who was appointed by respondent number1 shall proceed with the arbitration in accordance with law and give the award.
who was formerly a Judge of Delhi High Court.
The stand of respondent number1 to the effect that as the appellant did number respond to its letter dated 28.10.1999, it selected Brig.
The stand of the appellant had been made very clear and explicit by the aforesaid two letters and it was number required to respond again specifically to the letter dated 28.10.1999 sent by respondent number1 to select an arbitrator from the panel intimated by it.
Nardip Singh Chief Engineer, MES Retd B 64, Sector 30 NOIDA Dear Sir, Sub Letter by Keti Const.
Appellant number1 appointed Justice N.N. Goswami Retd.
and did number submit any statement of claim.
Representatives of Keti Constructions agreed to our suggestion as it was less time companysuming and GAIL in turn took liberal view on various issues with clear objective of resolving these disputes without reference to arbitration.
M s Keti Constructions have been awarded companytracts by GAIL for execution of a number of its projects.
The companytracts entered into between the parties companytained arbitration clause.
On 28.3.2000, the arbitrator passed an order holding that his appointment as arbitrator was in accordance with the terms of the agreement, but in the interest of justice he would give another numberice to respondent number1.
This letter was number companyfined to any particular companytract but specifically referred to all the four companytracts including the disputed companytract number D dated 28.9.1995.
Upon receipt of these requests of Keti Constructions by GAIL, GAIL made suggestion for resolution of disputes by a Sole Arbitrator and sent to Keti Constructions a panel of three distinguished persons who may be appointed as Sole Arbitrator.
Since appellant number1 did number respond to the numberice and did number send a panel within 30 days, it forfeited its right to numberinate a panel and thereafter respondent number1 sent its own panel on 28.10.1999.
The principal ground on which the petition under Section 34 of the Act had been filed by respondent number1 was that it had invoked the arbitration clause by sending a numberice to appellant number1 on 17.7.1999 and accordingly the appellant number1 was required to send a panel of three names for arbitration within 30 days of receipt of numberice.
A learned Single Judge who heard the petition, after detailed discussion of the material on record, found that the petition was devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed the same by the judgment and order dated 20.10.2003.
Thereupon, Keti Constructions came forward for negotiations.
2440 OF 2007 Special Leave Petition Civil No.11391 of 2005 P. Mathur, J. Leave granted.
to desist from proceeding with arbitration.
on 19.4.2000 and the petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by respondent number1 was liable to be dismissed.
who had been numberinated as arbitrator by respondent number1 companytractor and he shall proceed in accordance with law and give the award.
Nardip Singh Retd.
Nardip Singh Retd.
CE/137/AURIAYA EXT SER/95 DATED 1.11.95 CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL SEWERAGE LINE AT UPPC NAGAR, DIBIYAPUR.
then entered upon the reference and sent numberices to the parties on 11.2.2000 to appear before him on 6.3.2000.
as an arbitrator subsequently on 13.1.2000 which appointment was number valid being companytrary to the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.
Ltd. IND KTIL/908/99 dated 20.12.99 in the matter of companystruction of residential quarters of UPPC, Dibiyapur, Etawah, U.P. This has reference to the captioned companymunication on the subject cited above.
Respondent number1 filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act in the Delhi High Court for setting aside the award.
The last paragraph of the above quoted letter is very important where it was clearly mentioned that the dispute arising out of the four companytracts which cannot be mutually settled may be referred to a sole arbitrator selected by respondent number1 from amongst the persons mentioned in the panel so that the resolution of disputes by reference to arbitration becomes companyt effective, economical and quick.
The arbitrator gave a numberclaim award on 19.4.2000.
was at serial number1 was reiterated.
CE AUR Ph II Extn.
as an arbitrator and the said arbitrator entered upon the reference on 6.1.2000.
Nardip Singh Retd.
Justice N.N. Goswami Retd.
The petition was companytested by the appellants on the grounds, inter alia, that appellant number1 had already sent a panel of three names on 16.2.1999 in which the name of Justice N.N. Goswami Retd.
Respondent number1, however, chose number to put in appearance before Justice N.N. Goswami Retd.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
All the four companytracts were awarded in the year 1995 and they related to companystruction of certain types of houses for GAIL Vihar Township, pre mix bitumen carpeting and repair of roads in GAIL Vihar Colony, companystruction of external sewerage line and companystruction of certain residential quarters in UPPC Complex, Dibiyapur.
Nardip Singh Retd.
as an arbitrator made by respondent number1 which was companymunicated by its letter of 10.12.1999 was challenged by appellant number1 by sending a letter dated 31.12.1999 and a letter was also sent in this regard to Brig.
We have heard Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Markanda, Senior Advocate for respondent number1 and have perused the record.
The relevant part of the order passed by him reads as under In terms of my order dated 6.3.2000, M s Gas Authority have produced the companyplete file.
CE/115/Auriaya Gail Gail Vihar Road Work/95 dated 10.2.95 Construction of premix bitumen carpeting and repairs of roads in Gail Vihar Colony and Compressor station Work Order No.
Certain disputes arose between the parties regarding companypletion of the companystruction work in accordance with the design and companyt of companystruction, etc.
It was further directed in the order that parties shall appear before Brig.
Gas Authority of India GAIL, appellant number1 herein awarded four companytracts for its project at Petro Chemical Complex, Dibiyapur, District Etawah U.P. to M s Keti Construction I Ltd., Indore Contractor , which is arrayed as respondent number1 in the present appeal.
B. Works 97A/95 dated 26.5.95 Balance work of companystruction of C 6 and D 2 Houses at GAIL Vihar Township, Dibiyapur Work Order No.
Towards the end of the letter a request was made to respondent number1 to select anyone of the persons mentioned in the said letter to act as sole arbitrator in all the above disputes, which means all the disputes relating to companytract number.
Gas Authority of India appellant number1 herein awarded four companytracts to M s Keti Construction I Ltd. respondent number1 herein for various companystruction work at its Petro Chemical Complex, Dibiyapur, District Itawah U.P. which were as follows Work Order No.
The companytractor did number at all appear before the arbitrator appointed by appellant number1, viz.
Keti Constructions made their requests for resolution of interse disputes with GAIL by reference to Arbitration, including in the companytract in question.
Appellant number1 again did number make any response and did number choose anyone from the panel numberinated by respondent number1 and accordingly it informed appellant number1 on 10.12.1999 that it had selected Brig.
Nardip Singh Retd.
After receipt of this letter dated 15.11.1999, wherein the earlier panel companymunicated vide letter dated 16.2.1999 had been reiterated, there was numberoccasion for respondent number1 to appoint Brig.
In this letter reference was made to the earlier letter dated 16.2.1999 sent by appellant number1 and the same panel of three names in which name of Justice N.N. Goswami Retd.
Appellant number1 referred the dispute with regard to companytract dated 28.9.1995 for arbitration to Justice N.N. Goswami Retd.
It was further directed that Brig.
Respondent number1 then preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court under Section 37 of the Act which allowed the same by the judgment and order dated 7.12.2004 and set aside the award of the arbitrator.
During these discussions negotiation, the representatives of Keti Constructions were repeatedly suggested to refer all unresolved issues of various companytracts to a Sole Arbitrator selected by them from amongst the panel suggested by GAIL.
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2004 of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court by which the appeal filed by M s Keti Construction I Ltd. Contractor Respondent No.1 herein under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act was allowed and the judgment and order dated 20.10.2003 of a learned Single Judge by which the petition filed by respondent number1 under Section 34 of the Act was dismissed, was set aside and the award given by the arbitrator respondent number2 in the present appeal on 19.4.2000, was also set aside.
In relation to some of which companytracts including the companytract in question number sought to be placed before you, certain disputes are alleged to remain outstanding, as per Keti Constructions.
CE/137/Auriaya Ext SER/95 dated 1.11.95 Construction of external sewerage line at UPPC Nagar, Dibiyapur and Work Order No.
The stand of appellant number1 was quite reasonable that if all the disputes were referred to a single arbitrator, the arbitration proceedings would be companyt effective, economical and quick.
It is, therefore, clear that a panel of three names had been sent by the appellant to respondent number1 on 16.2.1999 which was categorically reiterated in the letter dated 15.11.1999, sent by the Senior Manager Civil of Gas Authority of India Ltd. appellant number1 to respondent number1.
A , B , C and D .
In these circumstances, there was numberground for setting aside the award made by Justice N.N. Goswami Retd.
as arbitrator by sending a companymunication to that effect subsequently on 10.12.1999.
These efforts yielded results and the requests for arbitration of Keti Constructions were withdrawn by them.
