Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. v. Ceneral Manager, N.R. & Others - ARBITRATION and CONCILI. APPL.U/s11(4) No. 13 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 10084 (23 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 9

Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 13 of 2005

M/s Ramjee Power Construction Limited,

Kumar Nivas Bright Lane, Kokar, Ranchi- Applicant


The General Manager, Norther Railway,

Baroda House, New Delhi and others Respondents

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Shri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Govind Saran for respondents.

This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 (6) of the Act on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the respondents has failed to act without undue delay (Section 14 (1) (9) of the Act) and that the Court may decide under Section 2 (14) that the mandate for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal has been terminated.

From the counter affidavit of Shri R.R. Rai filed on 12.4.2004, I find that the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed on 16.1.2000. The first hearing was held on 12.4.2001 and thereafter nothing has happened. The Railway Board divided the railways in  new zones and further decided in respect of arbitration matters, that where at least one hearing has taken place the matter shall be dealt with by the parent zone.

The matter was last fixed before the Arbitral Tribunal on 20.3.2004 but no progress was made. On 25.4.2006 after hearing the parties I recorded prima facie opinion that since nothing has happened for last five years  before the Arbitral Tribunal  the mandate for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal has terminated.

Shri Govind Saran was given time to find out, if any further progress has been made in the matter. He admits that nothing has been happened in the matter after 12.4.2001. The mandate as such  for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal, has terminated.


The parties  have informed the Court that a dispute arising during the course of contract has been deferred by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to Hon'ble D.K. Trivedi, J. (Retd.) and it would be in the fitness of things that  the dispute  subject matter of these proceedings, which arose after the period of contract, may also be referred to the same Arbitral Tribunal.

The delegation in the  order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 5.4.2006  includes all miscellaneous matters,  except Section 11 and the proceedings under Section 37 of the Act. The appointment of Arbitrator falls in Section 11 of the Act and as such it would be appropriate that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for  the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal.

The application is accordingly disposed of. The office shall place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

Dt. 23.5.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.