Case Note & Summary
The applicant, a registered government contractor, was awarded a contract by the respondent, the General Manager of South Central Railway, for extension of pit line and sick line facility at Nanded. The agreement was dated 9.5.2007 with a completion date of 2.10.2007. The work was delayed due to reasons allegedly attributable to the respondent, including obstructions, non-handing over of site, and variations. The applicant completed the work on 15.4.2009 after several extensions. Disputes arose regarding payments and the applicant invoked the arbitration clause in the contract. The respondent did not appoint an arbitrator, leading the applicant to file an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The court examined the contract and found that it contained an arbitration clause. The court held that since disputes existed and the arbitration clause was valid, the application was maintainable. The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The decision was in favor of the applicant.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Existence of Arbitration Clause - Applicant sought appointment of arbitrator for disputes arising from a railway works contract - Court found that the contract contained an arbitration clause and disputes existed - Held that the application was maintainable and an arbitrator should be appointed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate disputes between the parties arising out of a works contract containing an arbitration clause.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Law Points
- Arbitration clause in contract
- appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- existence of arbitration agreement
- disputes arising out of contract
