National Highways Authority Of ... vs You One-Maharia (Jv) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 986 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

OMP. No. 120/2005 and IA. Nos. 3112, 3394/2006

1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has addressed a communication in pursuance to the Order dated 1.12.2005 calling upon the Indian Road Congress to nominate the presiding arbitrator.

2. During the course of the hearing endeavor was made to sort out the issues and the matter was pending consideration on the issue of constitution of the arbitral tribunal itself for now almost six months and since arbitration is to be expeditious remedy, the very purpose of such remedy was being defeated.

3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that whole issue can be sorted out by having a panel of three arbitrators, with one arbitrator as nominated by each of the parties and the presiding arbitrator to be appointed by this Court with the joint consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. It may be noticed that as on date the petitioner has nominated Mr.L.R. Gupta, Director General Works, CPWD (Retd.) while respondent has nominated Justice S.B.Wad (Retd.). Justice S.B. Wad was nominated in place of Justice A.K. Srivastava (Retd.), who expressed his inability to act as an arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel for the parties propose that Justice Arun Kumar (Retd. Judge of the Supreme Court), 10, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 (Phone : 2301-2175) be appointed as the presiding arbitrator and arbitral tribunal be constituted accordingly.

5. The constitution of the presiding arbitrator and arbitral tribunal as proposed by learned Counsel for the parties is accepted by this Court and the said tribunal shall proceed to enter upon reference and determine the dispute between the parties. Ordered accordingly. The constitution of the tribunal be Justice Arun Kumar (Retd.) as the presiding arbitrator, Mr. L.R. Gupta and Justice S.B. Wad (Retd.) as the two other members of the arbitral tribunal. The fee shall be fixed by the tribunal itself.

6. It is further agreed that the interim order dated 15.4.2005 shall continue to operate till such time as any of the parties may move the arbitrators for variation and liberty is granted for the said purpose to the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. It is also agreed that the goods over which the petitioner has exercised lien may be shifted to one location at Main Camp Rai, near Haryana Sheet Glass Factory under the supervision of one representative of each of the petitioner and the respondent after making inventory for the same. The same is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent and the role of the representative of the respondent is confined to making inventory and supervising at the time of shifting. It is agreed that the shifting will be carried out on 12.6.2006 (Friday) commencing 10:00 am.

8. The petition and the applications are disposed of accordingly.

9. dusty to learned Counsel for the parties for service on the arbitrators.