LexASIAN THERMAL INSULATION (I) P. LTD versus BRIDGE & ROOF CO. (I) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ASIAN THERMAL INSULATION (I) P. LTD. f· v. BRIDGE & ROOF CO. (I) LTD. AUGUST 13, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, £.K'.. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, I 996-s. I I (6)-Dispute between ~ ...... c Company and the Contractor-Agreement between them contained an arbitration clause-Issue of appointing arbitrator-On application of Company, High Court directing the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice-Appeal by Contractor before Supreme Court-Contractor had ... already nominated its arbitrator-Parties agreed on a consensual D arrangement-Appeal accordingly disposed. of-Company to nominate its , .. arbitrator within 30 days-Thereafter Chief Justice of High Court to nominate the Presiding Arbitrator. ~ ,, Respondent-company had entered into an agreement with Appellant- . >< contractor. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose E between the parties. Order was passed by the High Court on the application filed by Respondent. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of High Court for naming an arbitrator. High Court declined to recall the order on the Appellant's petition. During pendency of appeal before this Court, the parties agreed on a F consensual arrangement. Disposing of the appeal, the Court -I HELD: Though arguments were advanced in support of the respective stand about the legality of the impugned order, it was agreed to by the parties G that following arrangement can be made : The appellant has nominated one Sri J. Chawla to be its arbitrator. Within a period of 30 days the respondent shall nominate its arbitrator. Thereafter the Chief Justice of the High Court shail nominate the Presiding A.rbitrator who shall be a retired Judge of any High Court. [Para 6) (1008-B-C) ·r H 1004 _.r:--< ~ ' . .. ~ ~ "' ASIAN THERMAL INSULATION (I) P. LTD .... BRIDGE & ROOF CO. (l)LTD. (PASAYAT. J.) } 005 SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 618, relied A on. Konkan Rly. Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd, (2002) 2 SCC 388, referred to. CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3696 of2007. From the Order dated 19.9.2005 of the High Court of Calcutta in A.P. No. 209 of2005. Kumud Lata Das for the Appellant. Puneet Jain, Sushi! Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhania and Christi Jain for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 3. The factual background as projected by the appellant is as follows: On 22.12.2003 work order was issued by the respondent to the appellant. There was a clause for arbitration in the agreement which was to the following effect: "4 l. ARB/TRA TION B&R confidently feel that there shall not arise any disputes or differences during execution and completion of this order by the Contractor. However, in the event of any disputes or differences arise between Company (B&R) and Contractor (hereinafter called the said parties) touching or concerning the interpretation of the terms and conditions as performance of the order or in connection therewith or the rights and liabilities of either of the said parties hereto, the said parties shall endeavour to settle the same amicably through mutual agreement between them, but ifthe mutual settlement is not possible between the Company and the Contractor, the provisions of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and all statutory re-enactment and B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R. modifications thereof and the rules made thereunder shall apply to such arbitrations." 4. On 27.11.2004 a notice of demand was sent to the site of the respondent and it was returned with the p.ostal endorsement "refused". On 30.6.2005 the request was reiterated. On 9.8.2005 an order was passed by the High Court on the application filed by the respondent. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for naming an arbitrator. On 19.9.2005 the High Court refused to recall its order dated 9.8.2005 on the appellant's petition. On 26. l 0.2005, this Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr., [2005] 8 SCC 618 has dealt with the nature of power exercised by the Chief .Justice of High Court or Chief Justice of India, as the case may be, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.