Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghatshila passed in Arbitration Case No. 01/2015 on 19.07.2016, where under the learned Court has dismissed the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of the applicant/writ petitioner on the point of maintainability holding that learned Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.
(3.) The relevant factual matrix is delineated hereinafter. The agreement between the parties for execution of a project at Moubhandar, Ghatshila was entered on 09.04.1992 followed by work order dated 28.09.199 The total price for consideration of the work was Rs. 9,88,62,600/- excluding the escalation. Petitioner's registered Head office is at Kolkata while the registered office of Respondent is at Chennai. The project was completed and handed over to the petitioner by the Respondent on 11.09.1996. The dispute arose in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 1,22,55,402/- under the Arbitration Clause 67 contained in the work order quoted hereunder:- "3.67-ARBITRATON-All the disputes and difference arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Copper Limited or any officer nominated by him in this behalf. No objection shall be taken on the ground that the arbitrator so appointed is an employee of the company and that he has or had to deal with the matters to which the agreement or the reference relates or that in the course of his duty he had dealt with or expressed views on all or any of the matters covered by the reference. The award of the arbitrator shall be final conclusive and binding on all the parties to the contract. In the event of the arbitrator dying, neglecting or refusing to act or resigning or being unable to act for any reason or his award being set aside by the court for any reason, it shall be lawful for the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HCL to appoint another arbitrator in the place of the outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid. The arbitrator may from time to time with the consent of all the parties to the contract enlarge the time for making the Award. Upon every such reference the assessment of the costs incidental to the reference and award respectively shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator. Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the rules there under and any statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. The venue of the arbitration shall be the place as the arbitrator at his discretion may determine." ;