Semantic Analysis by spaCy
B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.
Decided On : May-02-2008
Court : Orissa
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11', (int) 1 => 'Section 11' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.K. Ganguly', (int) 1 => 'The Arbitration Clause', (int) 2 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 3 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 4 => 'Employer', (int) 5 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 6 => 'Contract', (int) 7 => 'Arbitration', (int) 8 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Arbitration', (int) 10 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act', (int) 11 => 'The Executive Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 12 => 'Agreement', (int) 13 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 14 => 'the Adjudicator to Arbitration', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 17 => 'this Arbitration Petition', (int) 18 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd.', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1996', (int) 1 => '28 days', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '28 days', (int) 4 => 'the above 28 days', (int) 5 => '1998-99', (int) 6 => '26.9.1998', (int) 7 => '17 calendar months', (int) 8 => '1998-99', (int) 9 => '2007', (int) 10 => 'four weeks' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'binding.25.3', (int) 1 => 'Orissa' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1979.4', (int) 1 => '10,01,24,252.00', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '21.2.2005', (int) 5 => '31.7.2005', (int) 6 => '46,10,980/-', (int) 7 => '24.8.2005', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => 'three', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => 'one', (int) 12 => '24.8.2005', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '27.8.2005', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '12.09.2007', (int) 18 => '1979.6', (int) 19 => '615.7', (int) 20 => 'one', (int) 21 => 'six' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => ''Remedial and Upgrading' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hydraulic' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Spillway', (int) 1 => '7,57,98,982.00', (int) 2 => 'Shri Dibakar Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Retd', (int) 4 => 'Supp', (int) 5 => 'Balakrushna Behera', (int) 6 => 'Balakrushna Behera' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Agreement' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Justice Balakrushna Behera' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '537118', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. - The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-05-02', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.K. Ganguly, C.J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Ganguly, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Arbitration Clause is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Procedure for Disputes:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.1. The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.2. The Adjudicator shall be paid daily at the rate specified in the Contract Data together with reimbursable expenses of the types specified in the Contract Data and the cost shall be divided equally between the Employer and the Contractor, whatever decision is reached by the Adjudicator. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitrator within 28 days of the Adjudicator's written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator's decision will be final and binding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.3. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedure published by the institution named and in the place shown in the Contract Data.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The contract data relating to Arbitration is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Institution whose arbitration procedures shall be reached: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Arbitration will take place in accordance with: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded with the contract work for 'Remedial and Upgrading measures for Hydraulic gates and Operating equipment on right and left Spillway of Hirakud Dam Project' vide Agreement No. HDR NCB-2 of 1998-99 dated 26.9.1998. The total value of the contract work awarded to the petitioner, as per the original Agreement was Rs. 7,57,98,982.00 and the contract work was required to be completed within 17 calendar months. The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 10,01,24,252.00. The petitioner's case is that the contract work could not be completed within the stipulated period due to increase in quantum of work and also due to delay in finalization of rates of extra items with approval of deviation of decision with regard to funding of the project etc. Accordingly the petitioner intimated the opposite parties regarding the impediments caused during execution of work and requested the Chief Engineer-opposite party No. 2 to close the contract with effect from 22.2.2004 and to process the final bill which is due to the petitioner for the work already executed. The Executive Engineer-O.P. No. 3 vide his letter dated 21.2.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of the pending bills in respect of the contract work in question. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked Clause 24.1 of the Agreement and referred the dispute to the designated Adjudicator, Shri Dibakar Mishra, (Retd.) Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation), for adjudication of the dispute. Thereafter, the Adjudicator issued notice to the opposite parties. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, and also the documents/papers the Adjudicator vide his order dated 31.7.2005 awarded an amount of Rs. 46,10,980/- in favour of the petitioner. Since the said award of the Adjudicator was not acceptable by the petitioner, vide its letter dated 24.8.2005 petitioner intimated the Chief Engineer- O.P. No. 2 wherein the petitioner expressed its intention to refer the award of the Adjudicator to Arbitration. In the said letter, the petitioner furnished a panel of three names and requested the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 to nominate any one of them the sole Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the said letter of the petitioner dated 24.8.2005, the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 wrote a letter dated 27.8.2005 to the petitioner. In the said letter the Chief Engineer accepted the name of Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court for appointment as the sole Arbitrator. But, as no further step had been taken by the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In this matter, opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the stand which has been taken is that the submission of panel of names by the petitioner is unwarranted and uncalled. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that arbitration should take place in accordance with the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this case the admitted position is that the contract in question has been executed in 1998-99. The petitioner has thus admittedly entered into the contract after coming into effect of the said Act and after repeal of the 1940 Act. Under such situation, this Court already held that, the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal does not survive. It has been so held by this Court in the case of Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2007 (Supp. II) OLR 615.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That being the position, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case one Arbitrator is to be appointed by this Court under Section 11 of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case, since both the parties have agreed for the appointment of Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court, this Court appoints Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Arbitrator so appointed shall enter upon the reference within a period of four weeks from the date of service of this order upon him. The remuneration and other charges of the Arbitrator will be fixed by the Arbitrator himself. The Arbitrator after entering upon the reference shall decide the dispute between the parties within a period of six months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2009(I)OLR761', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'sub' => 'Arbitration', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '537118' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11', (int) 1 => 'Section 11' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.K. Ganguly', (int) 1 => 'The Arbitration Clause', (int) 2 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 3 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 4 => 'Employer', (int) 5 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 6 => 'Contract', (int) 7 => 'Arbitration', (int) 8 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Arbitration', (int) 10 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act', (int) 11 => 'The Executive Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 12 => 'Agreement', (int) 13 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 14 => 'the Adjudicator to Arbitration', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 17 => 'this Arbitration Petition', (int) 18 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd.', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1996', (int) 1 => '28 days', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '28 days', (int) 4 => 'the above 28 days', (int) 5 => '1998-99', (int) 6 => '26.9.1998', (int) 7 => '17 calendar months', (int) 8 => '1998-99', (int) 9 => '2007', (int) 10 => 'four weeks' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'binding.25.3', (int) 1 => 'Orissa' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1979.4', (int) 1 => '10,01,24,252.00', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '21.2.2005', (int) 5 => '31.7.2005', (int) 6 => '46,10,980/-', (int) 7 => '24.8.2005', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => 'three', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => 'one', (int) 12 => '24.8.2005', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '27.8.2005', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '12.09.2007', (int) 18 => '1979.6', (int) 19 => '615.7', (int) 20 => 'one', (int) 21 => 'six' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => ''Remedial and Upgrading' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hydraulic' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Spillway', (int) 1 => '7,57,98,982.00', (int) 2 => 'Shri Dibakar Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Retd', (int) 4 => 'Supp', (int) 5 => 'Balakrushna Behera', (int) 6 => 'Balakrushna Behera' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Agreement' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Justice Balakrushna Behera' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '537118', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. - The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-05-02', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.K. Ganguly, C.J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Ganguly, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Arbitration Clause is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Procedure for Disputes:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.1. The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.2. The Adjudicator shall be paid daily at the rate specified in the Contract Data together with reimbursable expenses of the types specified in the Contract Data and the cost shall be divided equally between the Employer and the Contractor, whatever decision is reached by the Adjudicator. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitrator within 28 days of the Adjudicator's written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator's decision will be final and binding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.3. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedure published by the institution named and in the place shown in the Contract Data.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The contract data relating to Arbitration is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Institution whose arbitration procedures shall be reached: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Arbitration will take place in accordance with: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded with the contract work for 'Remedial and Upgrading measures for Hydraulic gates and Operating equipment on right and left Spillway of Hirakud Dam Project' vide Agreement No. HDR NCB-2 of 1998-99 dated 26.9.1998. The total value of the contract work awarded to the petitioner, as per the original Agreement was Rs. 7,57,98,982.00 and the contract work was required to be completed within 17 calendar months. The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 10,01,24,252.00. The petitioner's case is that the contract work could not be completed within the stipulated period due to increase in quantum of work and also due to delay in finalization of rates of extra items with approval of deviation of decision with regard to funding of the project etc. Accordingly the petitioner intimated the opposite parties regarding the impediments caused during execution of work and requested the Chief Engineer-opposite party No. 2 to close the contract with effect from 22.2.2004 and to process the final bill which is due to the petitioner for the work already executed. The Executive Engineer-O.P. No. 3 vide his letter dated 21.2.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of the pending bills in respect of the contract work in question. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked Clause 24.1 of the Agreement and referred the dispute to the designated Adjudicator, Shri Dibakar Mishra, (Retd.) Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation), for adjudication of the dispute. Thereafter, the Adjudicator issued notice to the opposite parties. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, and also the documents/papers the Adjudicator vide his order dated 31.7.2005 awarded an amount of Rs. 46,10,980/- in favour of the petitioner. Since the said award of the Adjudicator was not acceptable by the petitioner, vide its letter dated 24.8.2005 petitioner intimated the Chief Engineer- O.P. No. 2 wherein the petitioner expressed its intention to refer the award of the Adjudicator to Arbitration. In the said letter, the petitioner furnished a panel of three names and requested the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 to nominate any one of them the sole Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the said letter of the petitioner dated 24.8.2005, the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 wrote a letter dated 27.8.2005 to the petitioner. In the said letter the Chief Engineer accepted the name of Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court for appointment as the sole Arbitrator. But, as no further step had been taken by the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In this matter, opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the stand which has been taken is that the submission of panel of names by the petitioner is unwarranted and uncalled. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that arbitration should take place in accordance with the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this case the admitted position is that the contract in question has been executed in 1998-99. The petitioner has thus admittedly entered into the contract after coming into effect of the said Act and after repeal of the 1940 Act. Under such situation, this Court already held that, the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal does not survive. It has been so held by this Court in the case of Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2007 (Supp. II) OLR 615.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That being the position, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case one Arbitrator is to be appointed by this Court under Section 11 of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case, since both the parties have agreed for the appointment of Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court, this Court appoints Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Arbitrator so appointed shall enter upon the reference within a period of four weeks from the date of service of this order upon him. The remuneration and other charges of the Arbitrator will be fixed by the Arbitrator himself. The Arbitrator after entering upon the reference shall decide the dispute between the parties within a period of six months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2009(I)OLR761', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'sub' => 'Arbitration', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '537118' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11', (int) 1 => 'Section 11' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.K. Ganguly', (int) 1 => 'The Arbitration Clause', (int) 2 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 3 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 4 => 'Employer', (int) 5 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 6 => 'Contract', (int) 7 => 'Arbitration', (int) 8 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Arbitration', (int) 10 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act', (int) 11 => 'The Executive Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 12 => 'Agreement', (int) 13 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 14 => 'the Adjudicator to Arbitration', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 17 => 'this Arbitration Petition', (int) 18 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd.', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1996', (int) 1 => '28 days', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '28 days', (int) 4 => 'the above 28 days', (int) 5 => '1998-99', (int) 6 => '26.9.1998', (int) 7 => '17 calendar months', (int) 8 => '1998-99', (int) 9 => '2007', (int) 10 => 'four weeks' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'binding.25.3', (int) 1 => 'Orissa' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1979.4', (int) 1 => '10,01,24,252.00', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '21.2.2005', (int) 5 => '31.7.2005', (int) 6 => '46,10,980/-', (int) 7 => '24.8.2005', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => 'three', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => 'one', (int) 12 => '24.8.2005', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '27.8.2005', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '12.09.2007', (int) 18 => '1979.6', (int) 19 => '615.7', (int) 20 => 'one', (int) 21 => 'six' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => ''Remedial and Upgrading' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hydraulic' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Spillway', (int) 1 => '7,57,98,982.00', (int) 2 => 'Shri Dibakar Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Retd', (int) 4 => 'Supp', (int) 5 => 'Balakrushna Behera', (int) 6 => 'Balakrushna Behera' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Agreement' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Justice Balakrushna Behera' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '537118', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. - The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-05-02', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.K. Ganguly, C.J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Ganguly, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Arbitration Clause is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Procedure for Disputes:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.1. The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.2. The Adjudicator shall be paid daily at the rate specified in the Contract Data together with reimbursable expenses of the types specified in the Contract Data and the cost shall be divided equally between the Employer and the Contractor, whatever decision is reached by the Adjudicator. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitrator within 28 days of the Adjudicator's written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator's decision will be final and binding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.3. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedure published by the institution named and in the place shown in the Contract Data.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The contract data relating to Arbitration is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Institution whose arbitration procedures shall be reached: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Arbitration will take place in accordance with: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded with the contract work for 'Remedial and Upgrading measures for Hydraulic gates and Operating equipment on right and left Spillway of Hirakud Dam Project' vide Agreement No. HDR NCB-2 of 1998-99 dated 26.9.1998. The total value of the contract work awarded to the petitioner, as per the original Agreement was Rs. 7,57,98,982.00 and the contract work was required to be completed within 17 calendar months. The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 10,01,24,252.00. The petitioner's case is that the contract work could not be completed within the stipulated period due to increase in quantum of work and also due to delay in finalization of rates of extra items with approval of deviation of decision with regard to funding of the project etc. Accordingly the petitioner intimated the opposite parties regarding the impediments caused during execution of work and requested the Chief Engineer-opposite party No. 2 to close the contract with effect from 22.2.2004 and to process the final bill which is due to the petitioner for the work already executed. The Executive Engineer-O.P. No. 3 vide his letter dated 21.2.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of the pending bills in respect of the contract work in question. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked Clause 24.1 of the Agreement and referred the dispute to the designated Adjudicator, Shri Dibakar Mishra, (Retd.) Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation), for adjudication of the dispute. Thereafter, the Adjudicator issued notice to the opposite parties. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, and also the documents/papers the Adjudicator vide his order dated 31.7.2005 awarded an amount of Rs. 46,10,980/- in favour of the petitioner. Since the said award of the Adjudicator was not acceptable by the petitioner, vide its letter dated 24.8.2005 petitioner intimated the Chief Engineer- O.P. No. 2 wherein the petitioner expressed its intention to refer the award of the Adjudicator to Arbitration. In the said letter, the petitioner furnished a panel of three names and requested the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 to nominate any one of them the sole Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the said letter of the petitioner dated 24.8.2005, the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 wrote a letter dated 27.8.2005 to the petitioner. In the said letter the Chief Engineer accepted the name of Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court for appointment as the sole Arbitrator. But, as no further step had been taken by the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In this matter, opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the stand which has been taken is that the submission of panel of names by the petitioner is unwarranted and uncalled. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that arbitration should take place in accordance with the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this case the admitted position is that the contract in question has been executed in 1998-99. The petitioner has thus admittedly entered into the contract after coming into effect of the said Act and after repeal of the 1940 Act. Under such situation, this Court already held that, the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal does not survive. It has been so held by this Court in the case of Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2007 (Supp. II) OLR 615.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That being the position, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case one Arbitrator is to be appointed by this Court under Section 11 of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case, since both the parties have agreed for the appointment of Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court, this Court appoints Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Arbitrator so appointed shall enter upon the reference within a period of four weeks from the date of service of this order upon him. The remuneration and other charges of the Arbitrator will be fixed by the Arbitrator himself. The Arbitrator after entering upon the reference shall decide the dispute between the parties within a period of six months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2009(I)OLR761', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'sub' => 'Arbitration', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '537118' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11', (int) 1 => 'Section 11' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'A.K. Ganguly', (int) 1 => 'The Arbitration Clause', (int) 2 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 3 => 'the Contract Data', (int) 4 => 'Employer', (int) 5 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 6 => 'Contract', (int) 7 => 'Arbitration', (int) 8 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 9 => 'Arbitration', (int) 10 => 'Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act', (int) 11 => 'The Executive Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 12 => 'Agreement', (int) 13 => 'Adjudicator', (int) 14 => 'the Adjudicator to Arbitration', (int) 15 => 'Court', (int) 16 => 'the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No', (int) 17 => 'this Arbitration Petition', (int) 18 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules', (int) 19 => 'Court', (int) 20 => 'the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd.', (int) 23 => 'Court', (int) 24 => 'Court', (int) 25 => 'Court', (int) 26 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1996', (int) 1 => '28 days', (int) 2 => 'daily', (int) 3 => '28 days', (int) 4 => 'the above 28 days', (int) 5 => '1998-99', (int) 6 => '26.9.1998', (int) 7 => '17 calendar months', (int) 8 => '1998-99', (int) 9 => '2007', (int) 10 => 'four weeks' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'binding.25.3', (int) 1 => 'Orissa' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1979.4', (int) 1 => '10,01,24,252.00', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '21.2.2005', (int) 5 => '31.7.2005', (int) 6 => '46,10,980/-', (int) 7 => '24.8.2005', (int) 8 => '2', (int) 9 => 'three', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => 'one', (int) 12 => '24.8.2005', (int) 13 => '2', (int) 14 => '27.8.2005', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '12.09.2007', (int) 18 => '1979.6', (int) 19 => '615.7', (int) 20 => 'one', (int) 21 => 'six' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => ''Remedial and Upgrading' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hydraulic' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Spillway', (int) 1 => '7,57,98,982.00', (int) 2 => 'Shri Dibakar Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Retd', (int) 4 => 'Supp', (int) 5 => 'Balakrushna Behera', (int) 6 => 'Balakrushna Behera' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Agreement' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Justice Balakrushna Behera' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '537118', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B. Engineers and Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. - The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2008-05-02', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' A.K. Ganguly, C.J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Ganguly, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Arbitration Clause is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. Procedure for Disputes:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.1. The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.2. The Adjudicator shall be paid daily at the rate specified in the Contract Data together with reimbursable expenses of the types specified in the Contract Data and the cost shall be divided equally between the Employer and the Contractor, whatever decision is reached by the Adjudicator. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitrator within 28 days of the Adjudicator's written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within the above 28 days, the Adjudicator's decision will be final and binding.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25.3. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedure published by the institution named and in the place shown in the Contract Data.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The contract data relating to Arbitration is as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Institution whose arbitration procedures shall be reached: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Arbitration will take place in accordance with: Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded with the contract work for 'Remedial and Upgrading measures for Hydraulic gates and Operating equipment on right and left Spillway of Hirakud Dam Project' vide Agreement No. HDR NCB-2 of 1998-99 dated 26.9.1998. The total value of the contract work awarded to the petitioner, as per the original Agreement was Rs. 7,57,98,982.00 and the contract work was required to be completed within 17 calendar months. The case of the petitioner is that during execution of the contract work, due to increase in the existing items of work as well as many new items of work, the final value of the contract work was enhanced to Rs. 10,01,24,252.00. The petitioner's case is that the contract work could not be completed within the stipulated period due to increase in quantum of work and also due to delay in finalization of rates of extra items with approval of deviation of decision with regard to funding of the project etc. Accordingly the petitioner intimated the opposite parties regarding the impediments caused during execution of work and requested the Chief Engineer-opposite party No. 2 to close the contract with effect from 22.2.2004 and to process the final bill which is due to the petitioner for the work already executed. The Executive Engineer-O.P. No. 3 vide his letter dated 21.2.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of the pending bills in respect of the contract work in question. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked Clause 24.1 of the Agreement and referred the dispute to the designated Adjudicator, Shri Dibakar Mishra, (Retd.) Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation), for adjudication of the dispute. Thereafter, the Adjudicator issued notice to the opposite parties. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, and also the documents/papers the Adjudicator vide his order dated 31.7.2005 awarded an amount of Rs. 46,10,980/- in favour of the petitioner. Since the said award of the Adjudicator was not acceptable by the petitioner, vide its letter dated 24.8.2005 petitioner intimated the Chief Engineer- O.P. No. 2 wherein the petitioner expressed its intention to refer the award of the Adjudicator to Arbitration. In the said letter, the petitioner furnished a panel of three names and requested the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 to nominate any one of them the sole Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On receipt of the said letter of the petitioner dated 24.8.2005, the Chief Engineer-O.P. No. 2 wrote a letter dated 27.8.2005 to the petitioner. In the said letter the Chief Engineer accepted the name of Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court for appointment as the sole Arbitrator. But, as no further step had been taken by the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No. 2 petitioner gave several reminders which are at Annexure-9 and 10. As despite several reminders opposite parties failed to take steps this Arbitration Petition has been filed on 12.09.2007 for appointment of an Arbitrator.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In this matter, opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the stand which has been taken is that the submission of panel of names by the petitioner is unwarranted and uncalled. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that arbitration should take place in accordance with the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules, 1979.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In this case the admitted position is that the contract in question has been executed in 1998-99. The petitioner has thus admittedly entered into the contract after coming into effect of the said Act and after repeal of the 1940 Act. Under such situation, this Court already held that, the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal does not survive. It has been so held by this Court in the case of Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2007 (Supp. II) OLR 615.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That being the position, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case one Arbitrator is to be appointed by this Court under Section 11 of the said Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In this case, since both the parties have agreed for the appointment of Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera, a retired Judge of this Court, this Court appoints Mr. Justice Balakrushna Behera the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Arbitrator so appointed shall enter upon the reference within a period of four weeks from the date of service of this order upon him. The remuneration and other charges of the Arbitrator will be fixed by the Arbitrator himself. The Arbitrator after entering upon the reference shall decide the dispute between the parties within a period of six months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2009(I)OLR761', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and Two ors.', 'sub' => 'Arbitration', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '537118' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 11, Section 11
ORG: A.K. Ganguly, The Arbitration Clause, the Contract Data, the Contract Data, Employer, Adjudicator, Contract, Arbitration, Orissa Arbitration Tribunal, Arbitration, Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Act, The Executive Engineer-O.P. No, Agreement, Adjudicator, the Adjudicator to Arbitration, Court, the Chief-Engineer-O.P. No, this Arbitration Petition, the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal Rules, Court, the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal, Court, Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd., Court, Court, Court, Court
DATE: 1996, 28 days, daily, 28 days, the above 28 days, 1998-99, 26.9.1998, 17 calendar months, 1998-99, 2007, four weeks
GPE: binding.25.3, Orissa
CARDINAL: 1979.4, 10,01,24,252.00, 2, 3, 21.2.2005, 31.7.2005, 46,10,980/-, 24.8.2005, 2, three, 2, one, 24.8.2005, 2, 27.8.2005, 2, 10, 12.09.2007, 1979.6, 615.7, one, six
WORK_OF_ART: 'Remedial and Upgrading
NORP: Hydraulic
PERSON: Spillway, 7,57,98,982.00, Shri Dibakar Mishra, Retd, Supp, Balakrushna Behera, Balakrushna Behera
PRODUCT: Agreement
LOC: Justice Balakrushna Behera