Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. By way of filing the instant petition, under Section 39 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "Arbitration Act"), the following reliefs have been sought on behalf of the petitioner:-

"A) Pass an Order directing the Arbitral Tribunal to deliver and publish the Award in the arbitration matter of "IRCON International Limited Vs. Rail Coach Factory (RCF), Kapurthala" in respect of the disputes arising out of the Contract of Agreement no. RCF/Expansion Proj./556 dated 12.12.2006;

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001373 e. On 30th April 2015, the Rail Coach Factory (hereinafter "RCF") made a communication to the Railway Board stating therein that both the parties were at fault for the delay in the completion and therefore, recommending a token LD instead of the full amount. The respondent refused to implement the recommendations of the Review Committee and proceeded to deduct the amount of LD from the bill of the petitioner.

f. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 11th December 2015 invoked the Arbitration Clause of the Agreement between the parties, i.e. Clause 9.2, wherein it was decided that if any dispute arose between the parties, the General Manager, RCF was to appoint Arbitrators to decide the same in accordance with the GCC.

31. The aforesaid communication flowed from the RCF, Kapurthala to the Arbitrators reiterating the fact that the Arbitrators were bound by the provisions under the GCC and that the fees fixed by them was not in consonance with the terms laid out by the Railway Board. After this communication, there remained no doubt that the Arbitrators were bound by the rates as fixed by the Railway Board, especially in an arbitration proceeding where the RCF is a party and retired Railway Officers were Arbitrators. This communication was duly sent to the Arbitral Tribunal after the contravening order dated 22nd September 2017 was passed by the Tribunal. However, after the proceedings were concluded and the Award was made and put in a sealed cover, the Arbitral Tribunal, despite the clear directions and communication, demanded the fee in accordance with the Schedule IV of the Arbitration Act.