AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch. Ramesh Babu - learned counsel for the applicant and also Mr. S. Yogesh, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Sriram - learned counsel for the respondent.
By this application under Section 11(5) & (6) (a) &(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), the applicant prays for appointment of independent sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute afresh and pass Award pursuant to the claim statement dated 27.11.2007, on the ground that the sole Arbitrator / District Collector, Visakhapatnam, appointed by the respondent, had failed to adjudicate the claim petition.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated at paragraph 21 that sole Arbitrator had passed Award on 24.12.2008 and the same was also challenged by the applicant by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act. The application filed under Section 34 of the Act is registered as A.O.P.No.209 of 2009. By order dated 4.12.2007 in A.O.P.No.209 of 2009, the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, was rejected. In paragraph 13, it was also observed that the learned Judge found no ground to interfere with the proceedings/Award of the 2nd respondent/sole Arbitrator.
In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that no Award was passed, is not correct. Even in the prayer made in the present application, it is prayed that Arbitrator may be appointed for adjudication of the dispute afresh, which, in other words, means that adjudication had taken place earlier also.
Considering the same, I do not find that any case is made out for appointment of Arbitrator and, accordingly, the Arbitration Application is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.