DAYAL CONSTURCTION COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Dayal Consturction Company
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Mr. Gurbax Singh was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by Chief Engineer (Civil), BSNL Uttaranchal vide letter dated 20.03.2001. Claimant / petitioner, herein, did not appear before the learned Arbitrator, therefore, learned Arbitrator vide impugned order dated 20.07.2001 terminated the proceedings of arbitration under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and was pleased to dismiss the reference, in default.
(2.) Undisputedly, Civil Suit No. 96 of 1995 filed by the petitioner was pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital involving the identical issue. Chief Engineer (Civil), BSNL, Lucknow vide letter dated 14.09.1995 informed the learned Arbitrator about the pendency of suit and requested him to proceed with the reference, after final decision in the civil suit. However, civil suit was held to be non maintainable in second appeal only, in view of arbitration clause in the contract.
(3.) Case of the petitioner is that petitioner could not appear before the learned Arbitrator thinking that there would be no need to appear before the Arbitrator, in view of the fact that civil suit was pending.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.