- (1.) IN all the three applications, a common question has been raised as to whether an Arbitrator can be appointed for adjudication of a dispute beyond the contractual period under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in absence of existence of any contractual agreement between the petitioner and the respondents.
(2.) THESE applications have been filed by the petitioner firm for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act on the ground that there is a bona fide dispute between the petitioner -firm and the respondent -company, i.e. Central Coalfields Ltd., since the petitioner had received contracts for transportation of coal, for which three contracts had been executed between the parties on different dates, it was stated that there is a clause in the agreement that in the event of existence of a dispute, the respondents shall appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and the award passed by him shall be treated as final. It was contended that as the respondent -CCL had failed to appoint an Arbitrator, although a dispute in regard to the claim of payment had been raised at the instance of the petitioner, this Court, in view of Section 11(6) of the Act, ought to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. Countering the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent -CCL that the petitioner has not made out a case for appointment of an Arbitrator as the contractual relationship of the petitioner -firm and the respondent -company was only for a period from 1.8.2000 to 31.7.2001 in A.A. No. 37/2007, from 1.4.2002 to 30.6.2002 in A.A. No. 38/2007 (only for a period of three months) and from 23.7.2000 to 22.7.2001 in A.A. No. 39/2007 and for this purpose, three different contracts had been executed between the parties. However, the petitioner admittedly has received the entire payment for these periods as per his own averment, which is to the following effect: '' "4(ix) 100% payment was made for the transportation in contract period and 80% payment was made for the period beyond the contract period and 20% payment was not released to the petitioner" (From rejoinder to counter in A.A. No. 37/2007) Admittedly the petitioner has already received payment for the contractual periods involved in A.A. No. 38/2007 and A.A No. 39/2007.
(3.) RELYING on this averments of the petitioner, it was submitted that 100% payment for the contract period involved in three applications has already been received by the petitioner and thus, nothing remains to be paid under the contractual obligation. It was further submitted that since the entire payment have been received by the petitioner, a case for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator or for appointing an Arbitrator is not made out at all.;