AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties. This application has been filed u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the "Act"). There is no dispute that the Contract contains an arbitration clause whereunder each party is to nominate its own Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators so nominated are to nominate a third Arbitrator.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has contended that it cannot be said that any dispute has arisen as the petitioner before approaching this forum had not given the bills/vouchers for ascertaining the amount payable. In view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act, the question as to whether there is any dispute or not can also be decided by the Arbitrator. In such view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to consider this aspect as all questions including the question as to whether there exists any dispute or not can be determined by the arbitral tribunal.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has nominated Shri Nilakantha Mishra, Retired Chief Engineer, 91, Suryanagar. At/ PO. Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, to function as the Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has suggested in Court the name of Justice V. Gopalaswamy, a retired Judge of Orissa High Court, at present residing at C.D.A. Colony, Bidanasi, Cuttack, to act as the Arbitrator on behalf of the opposite parties. The two Arbitrators thus nominated by both parties shall now proceed to nominate a third Arbitrator who is to act as the Presiding Arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal. If the two Arbitrators so nominated fail to nominate the third Arbitrator, it would be open to any of the parties to file fresh application u/s 11 of the Act for the purpose.
Subject to the aforesaid direction, the M.J.C. is disposed of.