- (1.) There is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the arbitration agreement. The respondents also say that there are live disputes covered by the arbitration agreement that can go to a reference. The appropriate arbitration agreement appears at page 13 of the respondents' affidavit. Clause 25 contemplates that the chief engineer of the relevant department would be the appointing authority and it would be open to the chief engineer to either take up the reference himself or nominate any other person to be the arbitrator. There is an exception carved out by way of a subsequent rule that amended the arbitration clause contained in the general conditions: for the arbitration agreement to be effective, the estimated cost of the work or the amount tendered, whichever is less, should exceed Rs. 1 crore.
(2.) There appears to be little dispute, particularly upon reading the work order dated May 4, 2009, that the arbitration agreement would be applicable. The estimated amount put to tender for the work was in excess of Rs. 1.99 crore, the tendered value of the work was in excess of Rs. 1.93 crore.
(3.) The only point that has been urged on behalf of the respondents is that since the chief engineer is given the choice under the arbitration clause to take up the reference or nominate another, notwithstanding the fact that a period of more than 30 days had elapsed from the date of receipt of the request for the appointment of the arbitrator by the relevant chief engineer and the institution of the present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court should direct the chief engineer to take up the reference or nominate another as arbitrator. Such submission does not appeal.;