SHROLENSON HARBANIANG Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to notice inviting tenders by respondent North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong (in short NEEPCO), the petitioner and some other contractors had submitted their tenders for construction of civil works of Dikrong Power House under Ranganadi Hydro Electric Project in Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner's firm of contractor was given the order for construction of the aforesaid project and an agreement was entered into on 1-5-1995 between the parties. There is a clause of arbitration in the agreement. The construction work is still going on. Some disputes have arisen between the parties and correspondence having been made between them but finding no solution the petitioner contractor firm by letter /notice dated 30/07/2001 addressed to General Manager C) Contracts, NEEPCO Ltd, Shillong wrote that "on receipt of this letter you shall be well advised to take action at your end for appointment of an arbitrator within 30 days, failing which, as per settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, you shall lose the right to appoint an arbitrator. In terms of Clause 66, I appoint Mr. Bulan Chandra Bergohain, resident of Guwahati as my nominee arbitrator. This may be treated is the final notice."

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, the said letter/notice was duly received by the addressee. However, no action thereafter has been taken and no arbitrator has been nominated by the respondent NEEPCO. As per the clause 66 (D) of the agreement, arbitration is to be effected by an arbitration board consisting of two members. One selected by the Corporation i.e. NEEPCO and the other by the contractor. So far as the contractor/petitioner is concerned, he has already nominated Sri Bulan Chandra Bergehain, Usha Nagar, P. O. Assam Sachivalya, Dispur, Guwahati-6 as their nominee arbitrator.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the Apex court judgment in M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2002)1 JT (SC) 587 : AIR 2002 SC 778) to contend that if the party, fails to nominate an arbitrator despite having been served with a notice of 30 days, this Court can consider to nominate an arbitrator dispensing with the requirement of the notice from this Court. Reference may be made to observations made in paragraph 17 (of JT) : (Para 18 of AIR) of the judgment which are as follows :--