Gauhati High Court
Union Of India vs M/S. Nsc Project Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 2 November, 2021
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010035922020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/51/2020
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY CHIEF ENGINEER (AF), SHILLONG ZONE, MILITARY ENGINEER
SERVICES, SHILLONG ZONE, ELEPHANT FALLS CAMP, P.O. NONGLYER,
SHILLONG, PIN- 793009.
VERSUS
M/S. NSC PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
L-87, STREET NO. 7C, MAHIPALPUR EXTENSION, NEW DELHI- 110037.
2:AJOY CHANDRA BORDOLOI
RETD. COMMISSIONER AND SPL. SECRETARY
PWD
GOVT. OF ASSAM
LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR
HOUSE NO. 28
DR. ZAKIR HUSSAIN ROAD
SARUMOTORIA
GHY.- 781036
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Advocate for the Respondent : MR B KAUSHIK
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 02-11-2021 Heard Ms. A Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the petitioner and Mr. SK Chandwani, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
The instant proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the matter of CA No.CE(AF)SZ/CHAB/07 of 2012-2013 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to incorporate three additional claims to their original counter claim was rejected on the ground of delay after taking into consideration the application filed by the respondent under Section 16(2) and 16(3) of the said Act.
It is also relevant to take note that the impugned order was passed on an application being filed by the claimant i.e., the respondent herein, under section 16(2) and 16(3) claiming inter alia, that the additional three claims were outside the jurisdiction of Arbitrator in view of the fact that the said claims were never referred in terms with the arbitration clause. The order passed by the Sole Arbitrator is an order under section 23(3) read with section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the provisions of Section 16(6) of the said act stipulates that the party aggrieved by a decision given under Section 16(2) and 16(3) can be challenged in a proceeding under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996.
Page No.# 3/3 In view of the above, this is not a case where exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
The interim order dated 14.02.2020 is vacated and the Sole Arbitrator can proceed with the said arbitration proceeding in accordance with law.
It is however, clarified that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2020 the petitioner is at liberty to assail the same in a proceedings under section 34 of the said Act after culmination of the arbitration proceedings.
With the above observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant