The learned Arbitrator held that he had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
An additional agreement was entered into by and between the parties.
On the said plea that the named Arbitrator in terms of Clause 23 companyld number have functioned as such, an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act was filed before the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.
Appointment of Justice P.S. Sahay was intimated to the said Superintending Engineer.
The named Arbitrator retired and his successor did number proceed with the reference for a long time.
He, however, instead of proceeding with the arbitration sought for directions in this behalf from his superior officers.
On 23.8.2002, he expressed his inability to companytinue with the proceedings.
All the aforementioned statutes have been repealed by the 1996 Act.
Another numberice was issued by Appellant asking the then incumbent of the office of Superintending Engineer to proceed with the arbitration.
The Irrigation Department of the State of Bihar asked the Superintending Engineer to companyclude the arbitration proceedings within three months by an office order dated 20th November, 2002.
The Superintending Engineer of the Circle who was the named Arbitrator entered into reference.
An objection, however, was filed by Appellant questioning the jurisdiction of the said Arbitrator on the premise that his numberination has already been terminated.
Justice P.S. Sahay, a former Judge of the Patna High Court was appointed but the Superintending Engineer fixed a date for hearing on 12.2.2003 by an order dated 8.2.2003, to which an objection was raised by Appellant.
8861 of 2006 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
A numberice under Section 14 of the 1996 Act was again served.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, Appellant invoked the said arbitration clause.
A proposal was made thereunder to numberinate another independent person as an Arbitrator.
There being alleged undue delay in companyclusion of the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal, a numberice was served by Appellant purported to be in terms of Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the 1996 Act .
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court opined that it had numberjurisdiction to hear the appeal as in terms of Sub section 2 of Section 37 of the 1996 Act, the appeal lay before the District Court.
A purported appeal was filed thereagainst by Appellant under Section 37 of the 1996 Act before the High Court.
The parties hereto entered into a companytract in terms whereof Appellant herein undertook a companytract for execution of canal repair work for Rs.
The said companytract companytained an arbitration clause being Clause 23 of the companytract.
11,33,421/ .
An award was passed by the Superintending Engineer on 20th February, 2003.
