Page 1 of 13
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.8230 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP© No.8218 of 2007)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants
VERSUS
Shri Dhanurdhar Champatiray ...Respondent
WITH
C.A. No.8231/2009 @ SLP(C)No.8222/2007
C.A. No.8232/2009 @ SLP(C)No.8224/2007
C.A. No.8233/2009 @ SLP(C)No.8226/2007
C.A. No.8234/2009 @ SLP(C)No.8234/2007
J U D G M E N T
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by special leave have been filed
against the orders dated 5
th of January 2005 in
A.R.B.P. Nos. 11, 12, 17, 18 and 28 of 2005 passed
by the High Court of Orissa whereby the High Court
had appointed Sh. Bibhudhendra Mishra, a Senior
Advocate of the Orissa High Court as the sole
arbitrator on the application of the respondent
filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
1
There was a problem loading this page.
Page 2 of 13
“the Act”). Since the parties and the subject
matter of the dispute are the same, we have clubbed
all these appeals and the same are being decided
analogously by this common judgment to avoid any
confusion.
3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of
these appeals as emerging from the records may be
briefly stated as follows :
The parties herein entered into a contract
pursuant to distinct notices inviting tender by
BSNL [in short ‘the appellant’] for the work of
construction of 4 Nos. of Type-II, 2 Nos. Type-III
and 1 No. of Type-IV Staff Quarters at Bhanjanagar
of vertical extension to combined building at Aska
of 3 Nos. of Type III, 3 Nos. of Type II and 4 K
type T.E. building at Jankia and of vertical
extension to 8 Nos. of Type II and 6 Nos. of Type
IV staff quarters at CTTC compound Vanivihar,
Bhubaneshwar.
2
Page 3 of 13
4. The said contract contained an arbitration
clause in terms whereof the Chief Engineer,
Telecommunication/ Postal Department in charge of
the work at the time of dispute, or if there be no
Chief Engineer, the Administrative Head of the said
Telecommunication/ Postal Department was to be
appointed as a sole arbitrator. The said provision
envisaged that in terms thereof no person other
than the one appointed by such Chief Engineer or
Administrative Head of the Telecommunication/
Postal as aforesaid should act as arbitrator to
decide the disputes referred to him.
5. The Respondent by letters, requested the Chief
Engineer (Civil) for appointment of an arbitrator
to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in
terms of clause 25 of the respective agreements.
According to the respondent, letters were received
by the Chief Engineer of the appellant no.1 on
different dates. The Appellants having failed to
respond to the letters of respondent requiring them
3