2015 (2) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of Arbitrators (hereafter 'PMA'), was dismissed. 2. The relavant facts necessary for examining the controversy in the present petition are that SAIL awarded a contract (No.P/Proj/Modn/4011999106.1/340008) dated 25.01.1993 to Engineers Project India Ltd. (hereafter 'EPIL') for commissioning of Walking Beam Reheating Furnaces in the Plate Mill and for dismantling of the Existing Furnaces at its steel plant at Rourkela, Odisha on turnkey basis. Certain disputes arose between SAIL and EPIL in in relation to this contract, which could not be resolved amicably. 3. The contract dated 25.01.1993 entered into between SAIL and EPIL contained an arbitration clause, which read as under:- "If at any time any dispute relating to this contract arises....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... T. K. Vishwanathan (Advisor, Ministry of Law & Justice), was neither Law Secretary nor Special/Additional Secretary as on 17.02.2011 and accordingly the award dated 17.02.2011 passed by Shri T.K. Vishwanathan, was void ab-initio and non est as being without jurisdiction. 6. EPIL contended that in terms of the PMA mechanism an appeal challenging the award of the Sole Arbitrator was filed by SAIL before the Law Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, on 07.04.2008. At the relevant time Shri T. K. Vishwanathan was the Law Secretary. He was subsequently appointed as Advisor, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India (which is equivalent in rank to Law Secretary). It was further pointed out ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Act of 1996 is concerned, we consider that it is void and the parties cannot by themselves exclude the statue itself which is being drafted by the Legislature to look after the arbitration matters." In this view, the intervention by courts is limited and in the normal course, a writ petition would not be maintainable. 9. In the present case, SAIL preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and pursued its appeal before Shri T.K. Vishwanathan. The contention that SAIL was not aware of the designation of Shri T.K. Vishwanathan cannot be accepted as the same was clearly indicated in the communications issued by the said Authority for holding hearings. A notice for hearing before the Appellate Authority that was issued on 23.02....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, ADB, Branch Circle, PWD (B&R) Branch, Faridabad as arbitrator for settlement of certain disputes. Shri R.K. Jain who was posted as Superintending Engineer at the material time, was later on transferred and was posted as Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle No. 1, Union Territory, Chandigarh, however, he continued with the arbitration proceedings and passed an award. The said award was challenged as being without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that; "We find that the point raised in this case is no longer res integra as the same has been considered by this Court times without number." After referring to a number of decisions, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding the award to b....