EAST INDIA CONSTRUCTION CO P LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application raises an important point of law which, on the facts of the present case, appear to be a matter of first impression. The petitioner-company has made the present application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, for the appointment of one Mr. N. S. Tayebji, retired Chief Engineer, Eastern Railway, as the Arbitrator in place of one of the appointed Arbitrators Mr. K. Ramani. The circumstances under which the application has been moved may be stated as follows.

(2.) THE petitioner entered into an agreement on February 2, 1963, with the respondent for construction of certain Railway quarters at Dhanbad. THE said agreement contains an arbitration clause which is Clause 63, the relevant provision of which are stated below:- Arbitration :

(3.) IT may be stated here that the facts in this case are not disputed. The short point to be decided in this application is whether it is lawful for the General Manager to appoint an Arbitrator in place of Mr. Ramani in accordance with the procedure mentioned in the arbitration clause or whether the Court will appoint an Arbitrator in place of Mr. Ramani. Mr. M. Hazra, Counsel for the petitioner, in moving the present application has contended that this is a fit case for the Court under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act to appoint an Arbitrator in the vacancy caused by the refusal of Mr. Ramani to continue as Arbitrator. In support of the said contention he has relied upon (1) Shamjimal v. Sefton and Co. Ltd., AIR 1954 P&H 190, (2) Messrs A. Ramjibhai and Co. v. Yusifali Mahomadalli Antria and Bros, AIR 1925 Sind 12 and (3) Surendra Nath Paul v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Cal 183.