NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.07.08 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao in Regular Suit No. 558 of 2007, whereby in place two arbitrators namely Mr. S. Chatarjee, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer(P)/Head Quarter, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi and Mr. Adiya Joshi, Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Cash and Pay, Railway,Cash Offic, New Delhi one Mr. R.G. Singh, Chief Engineer/Works Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi has been appointed as sole Arbitrator. The petitioners have raised finger upon the jurisdiction of Civil Court to pass the order impugned on the ground that the case in hand is governed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in which only Chief Justice of the High Court is empowered to appoint Arbitrator in the event of parties failed to reach an agreement.
(3.) THE factual matrix of the case is that contract for the work-zone II earth work in embankment, constructions of minor bridges, Rail level platform at railway station and cabins at station etc. was awarded by the petitioners to opposite party no.1 stipulating conditions that work shall be completed within 18 months from the date of issuance of acceptance letter. The agreement was executed on 27.01.1989 for the cost of work i.e. Rs. 78,48,240/-. Since the opposite party no. 1 could not complete the work within stipulated period a notice under clause 62 of General Condition of Contract, 1971 was issued to him with request to complete the work within stipulate period but he failed to follow the same, therefore, another notice was issued on 03.07.1989 even then the opposite party no. 1 could not follow the terms of contract. Therefore, a review committee was appointed, before whom opposite party no.1 explained that due to inter se dispute of partnership of firm, he could not follow the terms of agreement, but it was hope that the same would likely to be resolved and the work would be accelerated with effect from 01.08.1989, but the same was not appreciated by the review committee and it submitted a report to the Chief Engineer, Construction Headquarters to terminate the contract and invite a fresh tender for timely completion of work. The opposite party no. 1 again failed to follow the terms of agreement as well as undertaking, ultimately the contract was terminated by means of letter dated 17.08.1989 and the opposite party no. 1 was informed that the work done would be measured on 04.09.1989. He was requested to remain present to watch the measurement at the site, but he did not turn up. The measurement was done and the work was found to have been done at the cost of Rs. 24.20 Lacs.;