Meghalaya Engineers and Agencies v. The Union of India and 2 Ors

ORDER Date : 22.06.2023 Heard the petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

¶2At the outset, Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned legal aid counsel prayed for exempting his appearance in the matter on the ground that the petitioner-in-person has lost faith on him. The cause assigned by the petitioner-in-person is not appreciated. Moreover, as the petitioner-in-person is found to be an owner of a firm and doing contract/construction business, the Court does not find the petitioner to be entitled for any legal aid counsel.

¶3Be that as it may, on the prayer made by Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned legal aid counsel, he is exempted from appearing in the matter any further.

¶4This is an application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of independent arbitrator. It is projected that by letter dated 31.10.2022, a request was made by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer (AF), Shillong Zone for appointment of arbitrator, which was not done. Hence, this application.

¶5The petitioner was awarded with contract for renewal/replacement of condemned furniture and provision of furniture against certain works under GE(AF), Jorhat Schedule 'B' Part-III (Trade pattern furniture), bearing CA No. CWE (AF)/JOR/36(C) of 2018-2019. Apparently, the date of completion had lapsed that the progress of work was not satisfactory, hence, compensation notice dated 14.12.2019 was issued by the authorities and after some correspondence, the work was cancelled vide letter dated 18.11.2021. Page No.# 3/4

¶6The Court is inclined to observe that there are deficiencies in this application filed by the petitioner-in-person, because all the documents appended to this application is not verified as a matter of record. Moreover, there is no statement with regard to Annexures-P5 to P8 in this arbitration petition, nor there is any verification in the affidavit filed in support of this petition in respect of these documents.

¶7The learned CGC has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent no.2, which does not address the letter dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure-P1 to the writ petition), by which request for appointment of arbitrator was made. Moreover, by referring to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2, it is submitted that the respondents have a panel of serving officers for appointment of arbitrators. It is projected that there was a subsequent amendment to the contract and the petitioner was called upon to come and sign the amended agreement, which was not done.

¶8Therefore, as existence of arbitration clause in the contract agreement has not been denied, the Court is not inclined to dismiss this application on technical grounds.

¶9Be that as it may, as the petitioner-in-person has been able to show that the request for appointment of arbitrator was made by letter dated

31.10.2022, but arbitrator was not appointed by the respondents, the Court is inclined to appoint Sri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, Retired District & Sessions Judge, Flat No. 5C, Protech Harkanan, Ganesh Mandir Path, Noonmati, Near Noonmati Ganesh Mandir, Guwahati-781020, Mobile: +919435173963, whose name appears at Sl. No. 6 of the panel of the arbitrators vide this Court's notification no. 47 dated 26.04.2023 as the Sole Arbitrator in the matter of Page No.# 4/4 dispute between the petitioner-in-person and the respondents.

¶10The petitioner-in-person shall move the Sole Arbitrator in an appropriate manner as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today by providing a certified copy of this order before the Sole Arbitrator so appointed by the Court.

¶11It is clarified that this Court has not examined the claim on merit and/or about its maintainability, which are left open to be decided by the learned arbitrator.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010013162023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oArb.P./6/2023o MEGHALAYAoENGINEERSoANDoAGENCIESo REP.oBYoITSoPROPoSRIoSANJAYoSHARMA,oS/O-oLATEoJAYoPRAKASHo SHARMA,oC/O-oNEWoJBoCOMPLEXo1SToFLOORoFLAToNOo103oJPoAGRAWALLo ROADoSANTIPURoKAMRUPoMETROoASSAM VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo2oORSo THROUGHoTHEoSECRETARY,oMINISTRYoOFoDEFENCE,oNEWoDELHI-110010 2:THEoCOMMANDER oWORKSoENGINEER oAIRoFORCE oJORHAT oAIRoFORCE oJORHAT 3:THEoCHIEFoENGINEER oAIRoFORCE oELEPHANToFALLSoCAMP oAIRoFORCE oELEPHANToFALLSoCAMP oPOoNONGLYER oSHILLONGo79300o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oPETITIONERoINoPERSONo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oDY.S.G.I.oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE Page No.# 2/4 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA