A Case Decide by Supreme Court of India in the Area of Alternative Dispute Resolution
3 Pages Posted: 14 Mar 2007
Date Written: March 12, 2007
On 27.3.1993 an agreement was entered into between the Jala Nigam and Harischandra Reddy and another concerning construction of Mulawad Lift Irrigation Scheme within 36 months, which was to be completed by 26th November 1996. As Jala Nigam entrusted to the contractors certain extra work - the contract was extended till December 2003. The claimant raised disputes whereby the Chief Engineer was called upon as the arbitrator under clause 29 of the contract. But, the Chief Engineer refused to act as an arbitrator on the ground that the contract did not provide for arbitration whereby the contractor filed CMP under S. 11 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court of Karnataka directed the Chief Engineer to act as an arbitrator and asked both the parties to file their respective claims before the arbitrator. The Chief Engineer now acting as Arbitrator fixed the date of appearance for the parties and gave direction to the parties to file statements and counter statements. Depending upon the evidence he gave the award on 25th June 2000. Jala Nigam aggrieved by the award filed a petition under S. 34 (2) (v) of Arbitration Act before Principal Civil Judge who confirmed the award and Jala Nigam appealed under Sc. 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration Act to the High Court. The appeal was dismissed. Then the Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd., appealed against the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court.
Keywords: Arbitration, arbitration clause, issues not raised in the loser courts, arbitrator
JEL Classification: K32
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation