- (1.) AJOY Nath Ray, C. J. This is a recall application made by IFFCO directed against the order passed by me on the 19th of May, 2006 making appointment of an Arbitrator. Application of the respondent was made in respect of six contracts which resulted in the said order. Those contracts are respectively dated in the years 1981, 1983, 1985, 1991, 1993 and 1996. In regard to the last of these, the 1996 contract, an earlier appointment had already been made in the year 2005 and as such the order dated 19-5-2006 has to be modified to that extent since two Arbitrators cannot arbitrate on the same contract.
(2.) ABOUT the rest of the order, covering the other five contracts, the applicant IFFCO has raised points of limitation, jurisdiction and bona fides all clubbed together. According to them the alleged claims are so grossly barred by long lapse of time and the materials for saving limitation brought before the Court for its prima facie satisfaction are so scanty if at all in existence, that obtaining an order for appointment of an Arbitrator in these circumstances would tend to bring the machinery appointment itself into disrepute. It is quite clear that from 1996 upto 2002 when the application for appointment was made, six years had already elapsed. The contracts in question including those of the 80's referred to conclusion periods of sixty days or 90 days. The materials brought before the Court on the part of the contractors are basically only two. First, a letter dated 1-7- 1998 allegedly issued from IFFCO is relied upon, wherein it is purportedly stated that the old contracts should be made the subject-matter of submission of bills and calculations so that those might be processed. There are numerous over writings in this letter. Its genuineness is seriously disputed. Even if this letter exists a large part of the claim of the claimant, if not the whole, is already barred by limitation, both before 1998 and again after 1998 even if that letter could save limitation in some respect.
(3.) THE second fact for saving, the long lapse of time is an allegation that one Rashid Ikbal is processing the claim of the contractor. It is submitted that by an award of a Retired Hon'ble Judge dated 26-2-2006 Rashid Ikbal had been held to be an employee of IFFCO. That decision will not necessarily bind me here. IFFCO submits that there is an interview letter issued to Rashid Ikbal dated 3-5-2000 but that was all, he never became an employee of IFFCO. In these circumstances, no reasonable authority can be even prima facie satisfied that there is a case to go to trial which is of sufficient recent origin.;