[Civil Appeal No. 5618 of 2006]. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court dated 15th June, 2005 rendered in APOT NO.643 of 2003. We may notice here the bare essential facts, which would have a bearing on the legal controversy involved in the appeal. On 19th October, 1992, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of Industrial Covered Electrical Loco Shed. Subsequently, according to the appellant, the agreement was terminated in terms of clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract by which the agreement between the parties was governed. The twin reasons for termination of the contract were that the respondent initially delayed the commencement of the work and subsequently executed the work which was of inferior quality. Therefore, the appellant had to get the balance work completed from another contractor. On 24th July, 1996, the respondent raised certain claims against the appellant. On 30th September, 1996, the respondent demanded that the disputes be referred to arbitration. Since the disputes were not referred to arbitration, the respondent approached the High Court of Calcutta under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act, 1996") for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
↧