Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of the government undertaking’s appeal by referring its disputes with the State and MHADA, including the land dispute underlying the writ petition, to a sole arbitrator. Attempts at an amicable settlement had failed, and all parties requested arbitration, leaving the appointment to the Court. The parties were directed to obtain former Supreme Court Justice R.V. Raveendran’s consent within two weeks; the arbitrator was to settle the terms of reference after hearing them.
Issues
- Whether, after unsuccessful settlement efforts and the parties’ common request, their disputes should be referred to a sole arbitrator.
Held
- The parties were a public undertaking, the State and its agency. In view of their status, the nature of the controversy and the cited ONGC decisions, the Court first afforded an opportunity for an amicable settlement. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- When the parties reported that settlement was not possible, they jointly sought reference to a sole arbitrator and left the appointment to the Court. The reference covered their various disputes, including the dispute forming the subject of the writ petition and appeal. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Justice R.V. Raveendran was requested to act as sole arbitrator. The parties were to obtain his consent, on terms suggested by him, within two weeks; the arbitrator would determine the terms of reference after hearing them. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal disposed of by reference to sole arbitration, subject to obtaining Justice R.V. Raveendran’s consent within two weeks; terms of reference left to the arbitrator after hearing the parties.