N J DEVANI BUILDERS P LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs PDB Bairuah, learned counsel for the petitioner amd Mr P. Dey, learned Addl. CGSC for the Union of India/respondents in these three appeals.

(2.) These three cases involve common question of facts and laws and are interrelated and, that being the position, these cases are taken up together for hearing today and considering the nature of these cases, it appears to me that these cases can be disposed of at this stage and, accordingly, these cases are disposed of with the following short common judgment and order.

(3.) In all the cases, the petitioners sought for appointment of an independent Arbitrator directing him to resolve the disputes raised by the petitioner relating to the work of provision of SM Barrack certain OTM Accn, single JCO's Qtrs and JCO's Mess for certain units at Teliamura near Agartala (Tripura) CA No. CESZ/ TELIA/09 of 2000-2001 in FAQ No. 1(T) 18 (SH) 2001; likewise, in FAO No. 1 (T)19(SH) 2001, the same and similar prayer has been made by the petitioner concerned for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the related disputes raised by the petitioner in connection with CA No. CESZ/MHB/20 of 87-88: Provision of Hanger including Annexes with Allied Services at Mohunbari, and in the last case being FAO No. 1 (T)20(SH)2001, the petitioner made a prayer for appointing a sole arbitrator directing him to resolve the disputes raised by the petitioner relating to the contract work namely, provision of OTM ACCN for 22 AIR of FHT at Dinjan under CA No. CESZ/DIN/28 of 94-95 by contending inter-alia, that certain disputes and differences arose between the parties in connection with the execution of the related works for which the petitioners served due notice upon the authority concerned/respondents herein to refer the dispute/matter for arbitration under the related Clause 70 of IAFW 2249 of the General Terms and Conditions of the related contract but the authority did not refer the matter for arbitration, in other words, the authority did not appoint an arbitrator in terms of the said contract clause and being dissatisfied with the action of the respondents concerned, these petitioners filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1996). I have perused the related clause of the contract agreement which reads thus:-