NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. TRIPPLE ENGINEERING WORKS
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
August 13,2014
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY
Appellant
VERSUS
Tripple Engineering Works
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DATAR SWITCHGEARS LIMITED VS. TATA FINANCE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]PUNJ LIOYED LTD VS. PETRONET MHB LTD [REFERRED TO]
ACE PIPELINE CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BHARAT BATTERY MANUFACTURING CO P LTD [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MINISTRY OF RAILWAY VS. PATEL ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SINGH BUILDERS SYNDICATE [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. RAJA TRANSPORT P LTD [REFERRED TO]
DEEP TRADING COMPANY VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ANANDILAL LALPURIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-114] [REFERRED]MAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY, JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-227] [REFERRED TO]
THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. M.P. WAREHOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
MEHROTRA BUILDICON (P) LTD. VS. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER [LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-144] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYAWATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. B.M. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-225] [REFERRED TO]
MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED VS. NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
UNITY PRATIBHA CONSORTIUM VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-159] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH DODRAJKA VS. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PALZER MACHINE CRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2017-11-140] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH EARTHEN PRIVATE LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-218] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIRAJ CIVIL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
B. GIRDAPATHI REDDY AND CO. VS. MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD. [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-12-464] [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH VS. VIRTUAL WIRE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-385] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
SALMA DAM JOINT VENTURE VS. WAPCOS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-461] [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-332] [REFERRED TO]
POWER GRID CORPN. OF (I) LTD. VS. RPG TRANSMISSION LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED VS. THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-111] [REFERRED TO]
LIBRA AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BMW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-517] [REFERRED TO]
ASSIGNIA-VIL JV VS. RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI R.B. RAJESH VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-191] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA BHASKAR VS. H P GENERAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. DWARKA TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY, NWR HEAD QUARTER, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAGATPURA ROAD, JAIPUR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
ARAVALI POWER COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. M/S. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH VS. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
EAST HYDERABAD EXPRESSWAY LIMITED VS. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAITANI ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.T. K. ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM PVT. LTD. VS. DIRECTOR (PROJECTS) RITES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIRAJ CIVIL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
DILBAG SINGH CONTRACTOR, SON OF SHRI TEK RAM VS. NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, NWR HEAD QUARTER, JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-226] [REFERRED TO]
SENBO ENGINEERING LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-278] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUSH ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS (PVT ) LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-487] [REFERRED]
V K SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-3-207] [REFERRED TO]
M/S PRAGAT AKSHAY URJA LIMITED COMPANY VS. STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-6-70] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CONTROL SYSTEMS VS. M.P. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-325] [REFERRED TO]
AHUJA CLASSES VS. BOTHRA CLASSES [LAWS(GJH)-2020-9-171] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. RAJENDRA PRASAD BANSAL VS. THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-293] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The challenge in this appeal is to order dated 27.06.2012 of the Patna High Court by which a former Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court had been appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to the present proceedings arising out of two contracts bearing No. CAO/CON/722 dated 01.11.1993 and CAO/CON/738 dated 28.04.1994.
(2.)Both the contracts awarded to the respondent-contractor were terminated on 7.11.1994. Admittedly, the General Conditions of Contract of the Railways, which included an arbitration clause, governed the parties.
After the termination of the two contracts the respondent-contractor approached the Patna High Court by means of a writ petition challenging the terminations. The writ petition was dismissed, which dismissal was challenged before this Court in SLP(C) No. 17189/1995. The said special leave petition was also dismissed leaving parties to resolve the differences in an appropriate proceeding i.e. a civil suit or by reference to arbitration, as the case may be.
(3.)Though a panel of arbitrators as per Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the General Conditions of Contract was appointed as far back as in the year 1996, till date the award(s) in respect of the disputes arising out of either of the two contracts is yet to be passed. According to the appellant-railways, the proceedings of arbitration has been completed in respect of the disputes arising out of Contract No. CAO/CON/722 dated 01.11.1993. Even if the said statement of the appellant-railways is to be accepted, though no material has been laid in support thereof, what cannot be denied is the fact that till date the award is yet to be passed.
Admittedly, the arbitration in respect of the contract No. CAO/CON/738 dated 28.04.1994 has not even commenced. This is on account of the fact that in the year 2002 the North Eastern Railway, which had entered into the contracts with the respondent-contractor, was bifurcated into North Eastern Railway and East Central Railway. As the jurisdiction in respect of the aforesaid contract No. CAO/CON/738 was to be exercised by the East Central Railway it appears that the appellant has disclaimed all responsibility with regard to holding of arbitration proceedings in respect of the said contract and at the same time the East Central Railway has not responded in any positive manner to the several demands for arbitration lodged by the contractor.
Insofar as contract No. CAO/CON/722 is concerned, naturally, both the parties have tried to lay the blame for the delay in the process of arbitration on each other and the huge number of correspondence exchanged in this regard and the frequent change of the arbitration panel on account of exigencies of service of the panel members (retirement, transfer etc.) has made it impossible to pinpoint the responsibility in this regard on any one of the contracting parties. But what is glaring is the fact that though the arbitration proceedings in respect of the said contract No. CAO/CON/722 had commenced as far back as in the year 1996 the award is yet to see the light of the day notwithstanding the assertions made by the Union that the proceedings have been completed though as already noted, no clinching material in this regard has been brought on record; not to speak about the award of the arbitrators though such an award would have been the natural consequence of the completion of arbitration proceedings. It is in the totality of these facts that the High Court had thought it proper to travel beyond the framework of Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the General Conditions of Contract and appoint a retired Chief Justice as the arbitrator.
(2.)Both the contracts awarded to the respondent-contractor were terminated on 7.11.1994. Admittedly, the General Conditions of Contract of the Railways, which included an arbitration clause, governed the parties.
After the termination of the two contracts the respondent-contractor approached the Patna High Court by means of a writ petition challenging the terminations. The writ petition was dismissed, which dismissal was challenged before this Court in SLP(C) No. 17189/1995. The said special leave petition was also dismissed leaving parties to resolve the differences in an appropriate proceeding i.e. a civil suit or by reference to arbitration, as the case may be.
(3.)Though a panel of arbitrators as per Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the General Conditions of Contract was appointed as far back as in the year 1996, till date the award(s) in respect of the disputes arising out of either of the two contracts is yet to be passed. According to the appellant-railways, the proceedings of arbitration has been completed in respect of the disputes arising out of Contract No. CAO/CON/722 dated 01.11.1993. Even if the said statement of the appellant-railways is to be accepted, though no material has been laid in support thereof, what cannot be denied is the fact that till date the award is yet to be passed.
Admittedly, the arbitration in respect of the contract No. CAO/CON/738 dated 28.04.1994 has not even commenced. This is on account of the fact that in the year 2002 the North Eastern Railway, which had entered into the contracts with the respondent-contractor, was bifurcated into North Eastern Railway and East Central Railway. As the jurisdiction in respect of the aforesaid contract No. CAO/CON/738 was to be exercised by the East Central Railway it appears that the appellant has disclaimed all responsibility with regard to holding of arbitration proceedings in respect of the said contract and at the same time the East Central Railway has not responded in any positive manner to the several demands for arbitration lodged by the contractor.
Insofar as contract No. CAO/CON/722 is concerned, naturally, both the parties have tried to lay the blame for the delay in the process of arbitration on each other and the huge number of correspondence exchanged in this regard and the frequent change of the arbitration panel on account of exigencies of service of the panel members (retirement, transfer etc.) has made it impossible to pinpoint the responsibility in this regard on any one of the contracting parties. But what is glaring is the fact that though the arbitration proceedings in respect of the said contract No. CAO/CON/722 had commenced as far back as in the year 1996 the award is yet to see the light of the day notwithstanding the assertions made by the Union that the proceedings have been completed though as already noted, no clinching material in this regard has been brought on record; not to speak about the award of the arbitrators though such an award would have been the natural consequence of the completion of arbitration proceedings. It is in the totality of these facts that the High Court had thought it proper to travel beyond the framework of Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the General Conditions of Contract and appoint a retired Chief Justice as the arbitrator.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.