- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner submitted an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Mics. Arbitration Application No. 54/2004. At that time, it came to the notice of the Court that similar application was filed by the petitioner-applicant at Jaipur Bench. The time was sought to know about the fate of the petition filed at Jaipur Bench and then it came to notice of this Court in the Arbitration Application No. 54/2004 that the applicant clearly stated that he is no longer interested in the said application at Jaipur Bench. In view of the above, the arbitration application No. 36/2002 filed at Jaipur Bench was dismissed by the order dated 4-2-2005. After noticing above affairs, this Court also noticed that the matter has already been sent to the committee constituted as per the clause No. 23 of the contract between the parties and matter was pending before that committee. Against the proceeding before the Standing Committee, the present petitioner-applicant submitted his objection asking them not to proceed with the arbitral proceedings because the matter was pending before this Court in petitioner's above arbitration applications. This Court also observed that an application was filed seeking direction under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 opposing the proceedings of the committee under condition No. 23 and this Court observed that, that was not in the spirit of the provisions of the Act of 1996. In these facts, the arbitration application No. 54/2004 was disposed of by this Court at principal seat on 4th March, 2005 with the direction to both the parties to appear before the duly constituted committee in the office of Secretary to the Government in Irrigation Department, Rajasthan Jaipur on 18th April, 2005 and direction was given to the Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department to fix the date for further proceeding in arbitration proceedings as far as possible within a period of three months. It was specifically observed that in case either party fails to cooperate in the matter, it will be open for the other party to seek necessary directions under Section 11(6) by moving appropriate application.
(3.) The petitioner now has submitted this application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 seeking relief for setting aside the ex-parte decision given by the empowered committee. The relief claimed in the petition for setting aside the decision of the empowered committee is beyond the scope of Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 because of the fact that a decision given by empowered committee is a decision given under the contract and that cannot be challenged under any of the provisions under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 including under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996. The Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 is reproduced as under: (6) Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties,-- (a) A party fails to act as required under that procedure; or (b) The parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure; or (c) A person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to him or it under that procedure, A party may request the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment.;