- (1.) The State makes this case out to be another fraudulent attempt by a contractor to foist a liability on the State without any justification. The contractor was awarded a work order following a tender process but nothing happened thereafter since, by virtue of orders of this Court passed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the entire process apparently remained arrested. The contractor was awarded a work order on February 19, 1996 and rather than the contractor putting in the security deposit along with the earnest money already tendered at the time of making the offer, the contractor withdrew the earnest deposit in July of 1996. But such matter need not be conclusively dealt with in view of the order proposed to be made.
(2.) The contractor claimed that it had suffered damages on account of the contract not being allowed to be performed. An application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was carried to the Chief Justice of this Court or his designate at a time when orders under section 11 of the 1996 Act wore regarded as administrative orders in view of the Konkan Railway judgment that ruled the field till the SBP & Co. decision overruled the Konkan Railway view. It also appears that the State did not use any affidavit-in-opposition to the section 11 matter.
(3.) The State sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the order appointing the arbitrator passed on the section 11 request. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the matter on the ground that it was an administrative order and not a judicial order. The Supreme Court left the question of arbitrability open for the State to canvass before the arbitrator.;