Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7186-7189 OF 2008
[arising out of SLP [C] Nos.27491-27494 of 2008]
M/s. Universal Insulators & Ceramics Ltd. … Appellant
Vs.
U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Certain disputes between the appellant and the first
respondent were referred to arbitration. Second respondent
was the Arbitrator. A five member Committee was appointed
by the State Government to examine the long pending claims
of the appellant (said to be pending since 1985). The
Committee made certain recommendations regarding payment.
This Court by order dated 19.1.2004 directed that the
Arbitrator will decide whether the recommendations of the
said Committee should be accepted or not. The Arbitrator
gave an interim award on 24.2.2004 holding that the
recommendations by the committee were binding on the first
2
respondent and directed payment by the first respondent to
the appellant in terms of it. That was challenged by the
first respondent by filing a petition under Sections 30 and
33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’ for short). The
trial court rejected the objections raised by the first
respondent in the said petition and made the award, the
rule of the court. The first respondent challenged it
before the High Court and the High Court (by its majority
decision) set aside the interim award and directed the
Arbitrator to decide the application under section 27 of
the Act for interim award, afresh after giving due
opportunity to the parties. The appellant has filed these
appeals by special leave, challenging the said decision.
3. In the meantime, the Arbitrator (second respondent)
died and a fresh Arbitrator has been appointed. The
appointment of the new Arbitrator has been stayed.
4. In this background, the parties, after arguing this
matter for sometime on the last date, felt that instead of
again spending time and energy on the issue of interim
award, they may as well proceed with and complete the
process of arbitration in regard to the main disputes by
referring the dispute to a mutually agreeable sole
3
Arbitrator. On their request the matter was adjourned to
today, so that the parties seek instructions.
5. They took instructions and when the matter came up
today, submitted that Justice Saghir Ahmed, a former Judge
of this Court who is currently based at Lucknow, may be
appointed as the sole Arbitrator in place of the new
Arbitrator, by consent for deciding the disputes. In view
of the above, it is unnecessary to examine the matter on
merits.
6. We accordingly dispose of these appeals with the
following directions :
(i) All disputes between appellant and first respondent
which were pending before the deceased second
respondent, are referred to Justice Saghir Ahmed,
sole Arbitrator.
(ii) All records of arbitration (which were in the
custody of the deceased Arbitrator or with the
subsequently appointed Arbitrator) shall be
transferred to Justice Saghir Ahmed.
(iii)Having regard to the chequered history of the case,
both the parties shall cooperate with the Arbitrator
hereby appointed (Justice Saghir Ahmed) for early
disposal. We request the learned Arbitrator to
decide the matter as early as possible preferably
within six months. The Arbitrator may fix the fee
payable by the parties.
(iv) It is needless to say that all questions are left
open and the Arbitrator will decide the matter and
4
make his award on merits uninfluenced by any
observation made by the High Court or previous
Arbitrator.
(v) Parties agree that there is no need to consider the
issue of interim award and the disputes shall be
decided finally.
(vi) This order will supersede any previous order
regarding appointment of Arbitrator. The parties
will bring this order to the notice of the court/s
where the issue relating to appointment of
Arbitrator is pending and get those proceedings
closed.
_________________J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
New Delhi; _________________J.
December 5, 2008. (D. K. Jain)