PURNACHANDRA JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications have been filed by opposite parties 1 to 4 for recalling the order dated 25 6 1999 in M. J.C. No. 525 of 1997 and for a direction staying the further proceedings before the Arbitrator. The aforesaid M.J. C. had been filed by petitioner Purnachandra Jena (hereinafter referred to as the 'Contractor') under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for appointment of Arbitrator,

(2.) THE relevant facts and circumstances are as follows After issuance of notice on 8 5 1998, the case was listed on 16 4 1999, on which date the case was adjourned by three weeks and thereafter the case was again adjourned till after the Summer Vacation. Subsequently, on 25 6 1999, the following order , was passed by the then Acting Chief Justice :

(3.) THE submission of the counsel for the Contractor that the earlier order was passed on consent may not appear to be correct. It is apparent that the said order is in two parts; the first part purports to record the conclusion of the learned Acting Chief Justice that an Arbitrator should be appointed and the second part purports to be the appointment of Justice B. K. Behera, as the Arbitrator. It only appears that the latter part regarding selection of the Arbitrator was with consent, but not the earlier part, which appears to be the conclusion of the learned Acting Chief Justice. In such view of the matter, the submission that the order having been passed on consent cannot be recalled, is not acceptable.