SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE rationale of the modern day mantra evident in the judge -made law ruling the field on the matters in issue has been questioned by the respondent. To the extent that the reasonableness of the principle enunciated has been challenged, Article 141 of the Constitution of India is a complete answer; but in the applicability of the rule to the present facts, the journey that has to be charted will involve a discussion on the life of the rule, seeing it with both logic and experience.
(2.) THE petition is under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The facts are not in dispute, hence no affidavit has been called for; but the implication of the facts in the context of the law applicable thereto has been much debated upon.
(3.) THE respondent invited tenders in October, 2006 for work relating to the construction of bridges and laying of railway tracks. The tender notice was published by the respondent as the management and executive agent of NTPC Limited. Upon the petitioner being awarded the contract of value in excess of Rs. 31 crore, the petitioner claims to have undertaken the work thereunder. Disputes arose between the parties by the middle of 2009 and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the special conditions governing the contract by a notice of June 18, 2009. An arbitrator was appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director of NTPC Limited, as the mechanism for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal provided thus; but the petitioner was unhappy with the choice of the personnel of the arbitrator and protested the same before the arbitrator. Nothing much came of the reference: the petitioner says that its application challenging the choice of the arbitrator was not taken up in right earnest by the arbitrator; and, the respondent contends that since bias was alleged the arbitrator did not proceed with the reference. However, such aspect of the matter is not relevant for the present purpose and has been referred to only for the purpose of the completeness of the narrative. The agreement was terminated by the employer in October, 2009, whereupon a fresh notice of invocation was issued by the petitioning contractor on April 9, 2010. The appointing authority again chose the same arbitrator which resulted in a petition under Section 14 of the said Act being carried to this court by the petitioner by way of AP No. 611 of 2010. Such previous petition was disposed of by an order of July 1, 2011, which noticed that the personnel of the arbitrator had been changed by the appointing authority. Since the petitioner was ready to have disputes adjudicated by the new appointee, the previous petition was disposed of accordingly.;