- (1.) JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J. 1. The petitioner, Cement Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the CCI), a Government of India Enterprises, have challenged the order dated 16th December, 2002 and 28th March, 2003 passed by the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi in A.A. No. 16 of 2002. By the order dated 16th December, 2002, the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court while held that the appointment of Arbitrator as made by the respondent (petitioner herein) shall not be taken into consideration and observed that he would like to appoint an Arbitrator exercising his power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996). By subsequent order dated 28th March, 2003 while the Chief Justice refused to review the order dated 16th December, 2002, allowed time to the respondent (petitioner) to submit a panel of Arbitrators to enable the Chief Justice to select the name of an Arbitrator from the panel as submitted by both the parties.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the CCI and respondent M/s. Narula Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) reached an agreement in pursuance of Tender Notice No. 11 (15 -F)/C/93 -MMO appointing the respondent Corporation as an Agent for clearing, transportation, handing, searching and secondly transportation of cement at Ranchi Dump. Subsequently, certain dispute arose in connection with the aforesaid contract between the parties. There being a clause of arbitration in the contract, respondent Corporation and others requested the petitioner CCI to appoint Arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No action having been taken by the petitioner to appoint Arbitrator, the respondent Corporation filed an application under Sub -section 4(b) of Section 11 of the Act, 1996 before the Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court requesting him to appoint an Arbitrator. The said application was registered as A.A. No. 16 to 2002, wherein the petitioner was also impleaded as party respondent. During the pendency of the A.A. No. 16 of 2002, the petitioner appointed one Shri. V.K. Arora, General Manager (Marketing), CCI as the Arbitrator vide their memorandum dated 29th September, 2002. It was brought to the notice of the Chief Justice by way of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent - petitioner herein that the Arbitrator has been appointed. The case was taken up on 16th December, 2002 but after hearing the parties, the Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court ordered that the appointment of Arbitrator as made by the CCI shall not be taken into consideration and as such decided to exercise his jurisdiction under Sub -section (6) to Section 11 of the Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator, The parties were directed to submit a panel of three persons each by the next date for the purpose of selecting the Arbitrator. The petitioner, who was the respondent in A.A. No. 16 to 2002 filed an application to review the order dated 16th December, 2002, bit it was rejected by the Chief Justice vide order dated 28th March, 2003. Further time was granted to the respondent - petitioner to submit a panel of Arbitrators to enable the Chief Justice to select the name of an Arbitrator from the panel as submitted by both the parties.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner placed reliance on Clause 11 of the General Terms and Conditions as enclosed with the agreement which reads as follows : - - "It is hereby agreed by the parties hereby that only Courts at Delhi/New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction to decide or adjudicate any dispute which may arise out of or be in connection with the agreement." Clause 10.6 of the said "General Terms and Conditions" as attached with the agreement was also relied upon as quoted hereunder : - - "The venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi or such other place as the Arbitrator at his discretion may determine.";