Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

( c) Vide letter dated 25 th June 2003, petitioner invoked arbitration agreement and called upon the second respondent to appoint independent and impartial arbitrator. The said letter was received by respondent No.2 on 31 st March 2003. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 21st November 2003 appointed Mr A.C. Sen, General Manager (Health, Safety & Environmental) as Sole Arbitrator. On 27th November 2003, Mr A.C. Sen accepted the nomination to arbitrate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and fixed the schedule for filing pleadings. On 15 th December 2003, petitioner filed application under Section 12 read with Section 14 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before the learned arbitrator. Parties took various adjournments before the learned arbitrator. On 16th November 2005, the learned arbitrator extended the arbitration proceedings by 12 months. On 23 rd January 2007, the learned arbitrator dismissed applications dated 15th December 2003 and 30th May 2003.

20th October 2012, the petitioner filed present petition under Section 14 read with Section 11 of the said Arbitration Act.

4. Relevant facts in ARBP No.55 of 2013 :

(a) The petitioner is a small scale industry registered with District Industries Centre, Faridabad on 8th February 2008. On 1st April 1999 and 31st March 2000, contracts were entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for supply of cylinders. On 21 st March 2003, petitioner invoked arbitration agreement calling upon respondent No.2 to appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator. On 30th January 2003, respondent No.2 appointed Mr A.C. Sen, General Manager (Health, Safety & Environmental) as Sole Arbitrator. On 7th February 2003, Mr A.C. Sen accepted his nomination to arbitrate the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and fixed the schedule for pleadings. On 12th February 2003, petitioner filed an application before the learned arbitrator under Section 12 & 14 of the said Arbitration Act. On 10 th November 2005, the learned arbitrator extended the time by one year. On 23 rd January 2007, the learned arbitrator rejected the application dated 12 th February 2003 filed by the petitioner. On 26 th March 2007, petitioner filed another application under Section 14 of the said Arbitration Act before the learned arbitrator contending that the time prescribed under Clause 17(b) of the contract .. 10 .. ARBP-1193/12@ 55/13 @ 51/13 @ (L)1219/12 & 1196/12.

Section 16 of the Arbitration Act 1996. By letter dated 12 th July 2009, petitioner informed that petitioner would be participating in the proceedings under protest and did not agree with the orders dated 30th June 2009.

(d ) On 10th July 2009, the learned arbitrator directed the petitioner to file Statement of Claim by 11th September 2009 and directed respondent No.2 to file reply by 25th September 2009. Petitioner requested for extension of time by four weeks which was granted by the learned arbitrator. On 10 th December 2009, petitioner filed Statement of Claim. On 18 th January 2010, petitioner filed an application for inspection of documents relied upon by respondent No.2 in their reply and stated that petitioner would file re-joinder only after inspection of those documents was furnished by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed their reply on 8th February 2010 to the application objecting to petitioner's right to inspect the documents in their possession. Petitioner filed re-joinder on 4 th August 2010 in the said application. By order dated 14 th October 2010, the arbitrator allowed the petitioner to inspect the records of respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 did not provide inspection for about six months. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner did not contact respondent No.2 for taking inspection. On 16 th May 2011, arbitrator again directed respondent No.2 to allow inspection of the documents to the petitioner.

15th December 2003, petitioner filed application under Section 12 & 14 of the Arbitration Act before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator granted adjournments to parties for filing various pleadings at their requests. On 10 th November 2005, the learned arbitrator extended arbitration proceedings by 12 months. On 27th April 2007, learned arbitrator dismissed all the three applications filed by the petitioner. On 15 th May 2003, petitioner filed another application under Section 14 contending that time to make an award as prescribed under Clause-17(b) of the contract had lapsed. On 21 st May 2007, arbitrator sought consent of parties to extend time for completing arbitration proceedings by 31st December 2007. On 20th June 2007, respondent No.2 nominated Mr Anurag Deepak, respondent No.1 herein as Sole Arbitrator. On 5 th July 2007, petitioner objected to appointment of respondent No.1 as Sole Arbitrator. On 13th September 2007, respondent No.1 accepted his nomination as arbitrator.