Internship Report

Place of Internship: Steel Authority of India Limited

Period of Internship: 1st June, 2022 to 30th June, 2022

Guru Ghaisdas University,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

Session-2022-2023

Date of Submission-15th July, 2022

Submitted by- Monika Verma

Class- B.A. LL.B.
Roll no.-17001256
Semester- 9th

Submitted to- Dr. Sagar Kumar Jaiswal

Internship Coordinator
Law Department
School of Law
 ABSTRACT
In the following report, I have presented the work done during my summer internship
at Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, under the supervision of the
Mr. Vijay Mishra, Deputy General Manager, Legal Department SAIL Bhilai.

In this report, I have presented a brief overview of the tasks completed during the
period of internship with commission. In this report I have provided research works,
chronology of events, reply of grants and briefs of the pending and ongoing cases of
Raw Material Division of SAIL.

In this report I have basically dealt with the ADR cases, their issues, relief sought by
both the parties, facts and the current status.

I sincerely hope and believe that this internship will become mutually beneficial for
me. It will become an exceptional part of my professional curriculum and will work
as a catalyst for my future career advancement.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

During the period of my internship, I have received generous help from many
quarters, which I like to put on record here with deep gratitude to Mr. Ashwini
Bhalla, General Manager, for the guidance and suggestions which provided me
the necessary insight into the project report and paved the way for the meaningful
ending of the work in a short duration.

I would like to express our deep appreciation and indebtedness particularly for the
Mr. Vijay Mishra, Deputy General Manager, for this opportunity and endless
support. However, I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to Mr.
Apoorva Chauhan, Assistant Manager for the continuous support and help
throughout the period of internship.

I am also thankful to Das Sir, Vidhan Sir, Prateek Sir and also all office staffs of
the law department for their sincere co-operation. I believe that this endeavor has
prepared me for taking up new challenging opportunities in the future.
 List of abbreviations

 CMG: Conflict Management Group

 ODR: Online Dispute Resolution
 OEC: Outside Expert Committee
 ADR: Alternate Dispute Resolution
 UOI: Union Of India
 ORS: Others
 A.I.R: All India Reporter (IND)
 IACAC: Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission
 IBRD: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) (UN)
 I.C.A. Arb. Q. Indian Council of Arbitration, Arbitration Quarterly (IND)
 ICC International Chamber of Commerce
 ICCA International Council for Commercial Arbitration
 Indian Arb. Q.: Indian Arbitration Quarterly (IND)
 Indian J. Int. L.: Indian Journal of International Law (IND)
 DECLARATION

I the undersigned solemnly declare that the project report on Scope, limitation and
Implication of an interim award is based on my own work carried out during the
course of our study under the supervision of Mr. Apoorva Chauhan.
I assert the statements made and conclusions drawn are an outcome of my research
work. I further certify that
I. The work contained in the report is original and has been done by me under
the general supervision of my supervisor.
II. The work has not been submitted to any other Institution for any other
degree/diploma/certificate in this university or any other University of India
or abroad.
III. We have followed the guidelines provided by the university in writing the
report.
IV. Whenever we have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, and text) from
other sources, we have given due credit to them in the text of the report and
giving their details in the references.

Signature:
Name: Monika Verma
Roll No.:17001256
Enrollment no.: GGV/17/2046
 CONTENTS

 Title page
 Cover page
 Abstract
 Acknowledgement
 Internship certificate
 Declaration
 Introduction
 Scope
1. Interim relief from the court
2. Interim relief from the tribunal
 Limitation
 Implication
 Conclusion

 
 About the Institution

Ten time winner of the Prime Minister‘s Trophy for Best Integrated Steel Plant in
country, Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) is the flagship unit of Steel Authority of India
Limited (SAIL), a Government of India undertaking. It produces high strength Rails,
heavy structurals, wide and heavy steel plates of different grades, merchant products,
wire rods etc. Bhilai became the first integrated steel plant in the country to surpass
the 5 MT mark in crude production in the year 2005-06. Bhilai has unique distinction
of producing cleanest rail in the world.
Bhilai township is recognized by its splendid green cover with 50 lakh trees in the
plant and township area. It is located 40 kilometers to the west of Raipur, the capital
city of Chhattisgarh. BSP has had a distinguished record in key areas of
organizational performance i.e., economic, environment and social and has been
recognized by eminent bodies / agencies.

Under Corporate Plan 2012, BSP is set to embrace new state-of-the-art technologies
for improvement in productivity, yield and quality and for reducing operational
costs. Plans have been drawn where BSP is destined to become a 7.5 MT hot metal
plant by 2012. Along with capacity enhancement, achieving international
benchmarks in key operational parameters and higher percentage of value-added
products are some of the broad objectives.

All the core processes of BSP are accredited with ISO 9001:2000 certification for
quality management, ISO: 14001 certification for Environment management system,
SA: 8000 certification for social accountability and OHSAS-18001 certification for
occupational Health and safety.

BSP has an extensive optical fiber network spread across the plant and township.
IT has been deployed extensively for numerous on-line applications for higher
efficiency and greater speed. ERP project is live in BSP since 1st April 2009

and MES implementation is under progress .





 INTRODUCTION
Indian judiciary is one of the oldest judicial systems, a world-renowned fact but nowadays it is also
well-known fact that Indian judiciary is becoming inefficient to deal with pending cases, Indian
courts are clogged with long unsettled cases. The scenario is that even after setting up more than a
thousand fast track Courts that already settled millions of cases the problem is far from being
solved as pending cases are still piling up.

To deal with such a situation Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) can be helpful mechanism, it
resolves conflict in a peaceful manner where the outcome is accepted by both parties.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES OF ADR IS IT RESOLVES DISPUTE IN COST

EFFECTIVE MANNER, LESS TIME CONSUMING AND PRODUCES DESIRED RESULT.

It is widely accepted that the ADR principles are deeply embedded and in synchronicity with
Indian Ethos, since traditionally community-based ADR was widely practiced through the elders in
families and chieftains in villages in towns, well before even the concept of an Adversarial Legal
System was introduced by the British. Therefore, the recent initiatives to revitalize ADR
Mechanisms in the Indian Legal System can be viewed as nothing but a campaign to recalibrate the
Indian legal system with its age-old ethos.

The concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism is capable of providing a

substitute to the conventional methods of resolving disputes. ADR offers to resolve all type of
matters including civil, commercial, industrial and family etc., where people are not being able to
start any type of negotiation and reach the settlement. Generally, ADR uses neutral third party who
helps the parties to communicate, discuss the differences and resolve the dispute.

It is a method which enables individuals and group to maintain co-operation, social order and
provides opportunity to reduce hostility.
Disputes arising out of a contract containing an arbitration clause, unless specified otherwise, are
referred to arbitration. However, in many instances to safeguard their rights parties need to seek
interim reliefs either from the courts or from the Arbitral Tribunal which may be done before or
after invocation of arbitration, during the arbitration proceedings and after the passing of the
Arbitral Award. At such times the provisions provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, come into play for providing interim reliefs to the contracting parties.

An arbitral award could be defined as the final and binding decision made by a sole arbitrator or
an arbitral tribunal, which resolves, wholly or in part, the dispute submitted to his/its jurisdiction.
According to sec 2(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 “arbitral award” includes an
interim award.

There has been an increased preference for arbitration over the years especially for resolving
commercial disputes and this is because the law of arbitration encourages "party autonomy".
However, certain provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, namely Section 9 and
Section 17, safeguard the interests of one party over another, if the latter's actions are
unbecoming in terms of equity, fair play or natural justice, or they inherently violate the
underlying agreement – by granting interim protection to the former. Any contracting party is at
liberty to file an application for interim measures during or before the arbitration proceedings.
Under Section 9, a party is at liberty to file an application before the court for claiming interim
reliefs and under Section 17 a party is at liberty to file an application before the arbitral tribunal
for claiming interim reliefs.

Importance of ADR in India

To deal with the situation of pendency of cases in courts of India, ADR plays a significant role in
India by its diverse techniques. Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism provides scientifically
developed techniques to Indian judiciary which helps in reducing the burden on the courts. ADR
provides various modes of settlement including, arbitration, conciliation, mediation,
negotiation and lok Adalat. Here, negotiation means self-counseling between the parties to resolve
their dispute but it doesn’t have any statutory recognition in India.
ADR is also founded on such fundamental rights, article 14 and 21 which deals with equality
before law and right to life and personal liberty respectively. ADR’s motive is to provide social-
economic and political justice and maintain integrity in the society enshrined in the preamble. ADR
also strive to achieve equal justice and free legal aid provided under article 39-A relating to
Directive Principle of State Policy(DPSP).

Few important provisions related to ADR

 Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that opportunity to the people, if
it appears to court there exist elements of settlement outside the court then court
formulate the terms of the possible settlement and refer the same for: Arbitration,
Conciliation, Mediation or Lok Adalat.

 The Acts which deals with Alternative Dispute Resolution are Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and,

 The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution

 Less time consuming: people resolve their dispute in short period as compared to courts

 Cost effective method: it saves lot of money if one undergoes in litigation process.

 It is free from technicalities of courts, here informal ways are applied in resolving
dispute.

 People are free to express themselves without any fear of court of law. They can reveal
the true facts without disclosing it to any court.

 Efficient way: there are always chances of restoring relationship back as parties discuss
their issues together on the same platform.

 It prevents further conflict and maintains good relationship between the parties.

 It preserves the best interest of the parties.

Arbitration
The process of Arbitration cannot exist without valid arbitration agreement prior to the emergence
of dispute. In this technique of resolution parties refer their dispute to one or more persons called
arbitrators. Decision of arbitrator is bound on parties and their decision is called ‘Award’. The
object of Arbitration is to obtain fair settlement of dispute outside of court without necessary delay
and expense.

Any party to a contract where arbitration clause is there, can invoke arbitration clause either
himself or through their authorized agent which refer the dispute directly to the arbitration as per
the Arbitration clause. Here, arbitration clause means a clause that mention the course of actions,
language, number of arbitrators, seat or legal place of the arbitration to be taken place in the event
of dispute arising out between the parties.

What is the procedure to be followed once the arbitration clause is invoked?

 Initially, applicant initiates an arbitration by filing a statement of claim that specifies

the relevant facts and remedies. The application must include the certified copy of
arbitration agreement.

 Statement of claim is a written document filed in the court or tribunal for judicial
determination and a copy also send to the defendant in which claimant described the
facts in support of his case and the relief he seeks from the defendant.

 The respondent reply to the arbitration by filing an answer against the arbitration claim
of claimant that specifies the relevant facts and available defenses to the statement of
claim.

 Arbitrators selection is the process in which the parties receive lists of potential
arbitrators and select the panel to hear their case.

 Then there is the exchange of documents and information in preparation for the hearing
called ‘Discovery’.

 The parties meet in persons to conduct the hearing in which the parties present the
arguments and evidences in support of their respective cases.

 After the witnesses examined and evidences are presented, then there in conclusion
arbitrator gives an ‘Award’ which is binding on the parties.
Now the intricacies of the proceedings vary with the arbitration agreement. For example, there
could be a timeline which must be followed. This timeline would be stipulated in the agreement.

Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides if any party disrespects the arbitral
agreement and instead of moving to arbitration, moves that suit to civil court, other party can apply
the court for referring the matter to arbitration tribunal as per the agreement but not later the
submission of the first statement. The application must include a certified copy of arbitration
agreement and if courts satisfy with it, the matter will be referred to arbitration.



 CASE BRIEF-01
STEEL AUTHRITY OF INDIA LIMITED, RMD (CLAIMANT)
VERSUS
SOHAN MINERALS AND MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (RESPONDENT)

Issue: It is required to decide whether the invocation of clause ‘Force Majeure’ was justified or
not.

In the present case the respondent alleges the following: The obstruction of work was due to
claimant’s failure to discharge the outstanding dues of contract labourers which led to the violent
behavior.

In the present case respondent alleges the following: The respondent has committed a breach of
contract as per the terms and condition of agreement.
The statutory dues claimed were related to a period before the work order, falling outside the
purview of the work order and agreement. Therefore claimant is not accountable for the trouble
faced by the respondent.

Facts: This matter arises out of failure to perform the work awarded by the Kuteshwar limestone
mines, SAIL to the Sohan Minerals and Mining Company Private Limited from dated 16.05.2014
to 15.05.2017. vide work order no.RMD/KTR/CC/WO/2014-15/MIN/10. The contract was
awarded for a period of three years with effect from 16.05.2014. Subsequent to the
commencement of work the contractor entered in to a formal agreement with the employer vide no
RMD/KTR/CC/AGR/2014-15/09 dated 14/06/2014 as required under the terms and conditions of
the work order. The Contractor left the work unexecuted in the midway after December 2014 on
the grounds of civil commotion by the contract labourers due to which huge loss and damages
incurred to KTR SAIL. Despite the request and notice for the performance of completion of
contract, the contractor didn’t resume the work. On 12/02/2015 the contractor issued notice of
invocation of ‘Force Majeure’ in relation to civil commotion by the labours due to alleged acts of
violence by labours and contended that the performance of the contract has been frustrated as per
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The officials of the SAIL (RMD) visited the site
several times in order to examine the situation but found that there was no such civil commotion as
alleged was prevailing. SAIL (RMD) informed that the company would be liable for the severe loss
and damage suffered by the claimant due to the abrupt stoppage of work Thereafter on 30.04.2014
termination notice was issued as per clause 10 of the General Conditions of the contract terminated
and also informed that they will get the work done through another contractor. The respondent also
placed forth their demand for outstanding dues for the fulfilment of agitating labourers to resolve
the issue. The claimant failed to remit the same as the statutory dues claimed were related to a
period before the work order.

CONCILIATION PROCEDURE

SAIL (RMD) sent the letter dated 21.12.2016 and 31.01.2017 requested the contractor of the
company for conciliation. Upon hearing the submission of both the parties and on perusal of the
documents submitted by the parties it appears that there was no civil commotion as there was no
violence and disturbance in the total area. The contractor of the company didn’t submit any
document in support of his claim that there was civil commotion. It is therefore mentioned that
efforts were being made by the Conciliator to bring both the parties to a settlement, however due to
sticking of the parties to their respective stands the conciliation ended in failure. .

Relief sought by the petitioner:

 An award for sum of Rs.26, 73, 29,366 which was suffered by the claimant due to non
fulfillment of monthly/quarterly target and at the difference rate on which Abhinav
construction was working.
 In the alternative an enquiry into the loss and damage suffered by the SAIL (RMD)
 And an award for such sum as may be found due upon such enquiry.

 Interim Award

 Interest pendente lite (awaiting the litigation) and upon award 18% per annum until paymen
thereof.

Relief sought by the Respondent: The claimant to pay a liquidated sum of Rs. 4,92,85,813 with
the interest thereon rate of 18% per annum or as deemed fit reasonable.

ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
Then it was referred to arbitration with the sole discretion that allows the General Manager of the
respondent to appoint the sole Arbitrator. When the preliminary meeting was held by the appointed
Arbitrator, he made a disclosure that he was an employee of SAIL and has represented the claimant
before the Court of law. The learned arbitrator had also disclosed that he is associated with Law
firm (Fox and Mandal) for the past one year but failed to intimate the fact that the same law firm
has been regularly advising and representing SAIL in large transactions and litigation giving
justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality.

CHALLENGING THE ARBITRATOR IN HIGH COURT

Sohan minerals and mining company limited (PETITIONER)
Versus
Steel Authority of India Limited RMD (RESPONDENT)

Petitioner’s Counsel:
Mr. Rohit Das,
Ms. Kishwar Rahman,

Respondent’s Counsel:
Ms. Supriya Basu, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nicky Choudhury, Adv.
Ms. Sanchari Chakroborty, Adv.
Mr. Soumik Chakraborty, Adv.

Issue: In the facts of the present case, the petitioner contends that the Arbitrator appointed is hit by
the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act of 1996.The Court is, therefore, required to decide
whether the mandate of the Arbitrator stands terminated or not.

Facts: On 03.01.2021 the petitioner applied before the learned Arbitrator questioning his
appointment. Such application was rejected by an order of the learned Arbitrator on February 29,
2020. Due to lockdown the next sitting fixed was adjourned. In the meanwhile petitioner filed an
application in the High Court at Calcutta that the learned Arbitrator is ineligible to be appointed as
an arbitrator.
In the present case, petitioner alleges the following: They had been unfairly treated during the
entire process leading up to the appointment of sole Arbitrator. When the conciliation process was
on, they were constrained from taking recourse to other proceedings. The claimant has suppressed
the vital and material facts pertaining to the instant arbitration proceedings so as to the prejudice
the learned sole arbitrator against the arbitrator.
In the present case, respondent alleges the following: The appointment of the Arbitrator was
made in agreement. When the Arbitrator disclosed that he was an employee of SAIL (retired) and
has no interest in the subject matter during the preliminary meeting to which the petitioner did not
object within 15 days and continued participation in proceeding. Hence the petitioner had waived
its objections.

The relief sought by the petitioner is: The correspondence exchanged between the parties does
not establish that the petitioner waived its objection by express agreement in writing subsequent to
the disputes having arisen between the parties. Therefore an arbitrator should be appointed to
arbitrate the dispute between the parties.
The claimant should pay the cost and expenses of instant arbitral proceeding, including the
advocate’s fees

Holdings: The High Court held that the appointing authority suffers a disqualification under
section 12 of the act of 1996. The Arbitrator suffers a disqualification under Section 12(5) of the
Act of 1996. Participation in the arbitration proceeding per se does not qualify as an express
agreement in writing to waive the objection under Section 12 (5) of the Act of 1996 by
participating in the arbitration proceeding and thus and appointed Chief Justice Bhaskar
Bhattacharya (Retired) as the Arbitrator.

CHALLENGING THE HIGH COURT’S JUDGEMENT IN THE HONOURABLE

SUPREME COURT

Petitioner’s Counsel- Rupesh Kumar

Current Status: The respondent (SAIL) challenged the High Court’s judgment through Special
Leave Petition No.008666/2021 on 06.07.2021 which is currently pending on Supreme Court AP
No. 179 0f 2020.
 CASE BRIEF-02

ARBITRATION BETWEEN
M/S S.S. & COMPANY (CLAIMANT)
VERSUS
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED RMD (RESPONDENT)

In the present case petitioner alleges the following:

1) The issue of Liquidated damages without being addressed was unethical and immoral.
2) Final bill revised memo of security deposit refund: the illegal recoveries of Rs 41,39.438.68
which was adjusted from the final bill amount of Rs 16,44,242.85 and the balance Rs
24.95.195.83 was adjusted from the security deposit.
3) Non-settlement of over recoveries on account of energy charges including contract demand
charges.
4) Non-settlement of over recoveries on account of railway recoveries.
5) Compensation for complete idling of equipments and manpower for 2 months due to inability
of KTR to get approvals from state authorities for continuous operation of mining activity as
direct by MHA.
6) They have suffered huge loss in the execution of contract due to-
 Unscheduled load shedding of power rendering both manpower and equipment idle.
 Non availability of explosives as per production schedule leading to huge idling of both
manpower and equipments.

In the present case respondent alleges the following:

1) Non fulfillment of target during QTR 1 & QTR 2 due to which huge losses incurred to SAIL
KTR.
2) There was no shortage of explosives during the entire period of explosives.
3) During lockdown, the work was at halt for two months in spite of several written reminders that
the district authority has allowed for total mining operation of C&S plant and transportation to
railway sliding.
Facts: This matter relates to the work order no. RMD/K/CC/WO/11578 dated 07/06/2017 awarded
to M/s S.S & Company for the job of composite mechanized contract (feeding through contractor
plant for a period of 03 years from 28/06/2017 to 27/06/2020 at Kuteshwar Limestone Mines. The
formal contract was executed on 26/10/2017 vide agreement no.-RMD/KTR/CC/AGR/2017-18/13.
The contract got expired on 27/06/2021. Due to non-finalization of fresh contract and to sustain the
production and dispatch, a repeat order was awarded to the same contractor on for a period of four
months from 24/09/2020 to 23/01/2021 vide 1 st repeat order no. RMD/K/CC/RO/15106 and the
same were further extended for 45 days from 24/01/2021 to 09/03/2021 vide time extension order
no RMD/K/CC/Time extension/15380 on 20/01/2021. However, the contract got completed on
28/02/2021 as quantity exhausted for execution.

The liquidated damage for 2 years i.e. from 28/06/2017 to 27/06/2019 of the contract was not
calculated by the mines manager. A committee was constituted vide order no
SAIL/RMD/KTR/Min/2019/1830 to ascertain the liquidated damages and facts behind non-
fulfillment of target during QTR1 & QTR2 and for deriving the actual target of that period.the
committee submitted its report on 17/05/2020. Based on the recommendations made by the
committee LD for QTR 1 & QTR 2 of 1st year was calculated and simultaneously for QTR 3 and
QTR 4 was also calculated. The contract requested on 23/05/2021 for mutual settlement of the
disputes through conciliation within parameters of the terms and conditions of the contract, saving
both parties from financial expenses & claimed a total amount of Rs 11.25 Cr in the instant matter.
Wherein KTR in reply expressed that mutual negotiation may not be successful as after due
consideration, the recovery has been made from the final bills of M/s S.S & Company except the
railway recovery. However SAIL proposed a scheme for the settlement of issues through Outside
Expert Committee pertaining to claims in between 2Cr. to 250Cr and requested to opt for the same.
The petitioner agreed to accept the scheme as offered by the SAIL on 05/06/2021 for settlement
through the Outside expert Committee.

Relief sought by the claimant:

 Final bill revised memo of security deposit refund amounting to Rs 95,00,000/-.
 Non-settlement of over recoveries on account of energy charges including contract demand
charges amount to Rs 15,00,000/-.
 Non-settlement of over recoveries on account of railway recoveries amounting to Rs
7,00,00,000/-.
  Idling of equipment and manpower due to unscheduled load shedding and non-availability
of explosives timely to provide the required quantum of ROM, amounting to Rs.
1,50,00,000/-
 Compensation for complete idling of equipments and manpower for 2 months due to
inability of KTR to get approvals from state authorities.

Relief sought by the respondent:

 Since the value of the final bill is less than the recovery amount so the payable amount was
nil. An amount of Rs 45,89,522/- against alary of contractual labour during lockdown
period from 25/03/2020 to 17/05/2020 is withheld from SD Rs 2,00,000/- has been
deducted from SD as a security against future demand of railway arising from audit of rake
loading, as the audit of Railway completed in the next financial year till June. So the claim
for refund of 95,00,000/- is not tenable.
 No claim on account of idle wages of the labour or the idle charges for the machineries
shall be entertained under any circumstances. So claim for refund of Rs 1,65,00,000/- is not
tenable.
 Revision of energy charges was which was calculated on each time, there was variation due
to constitution factor and accordingly revised. So claim for refund of 15,00,000/- is not
tenable.

Current status: Both the parties have agreed to settle dispute through Outside expert Committee
and will proceed accordingly after the constitution of Outside Expert Committee.
 CASE BRIEF-03
IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPUR BENCH
SATRUJEET SINGH KSHATRI
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITON NO-12363 OF 2008

Petitioner’s counsel: Gyanendra Singh Baghel, Devendra Singh Baghel.

Respondent’s counsel: Avinash Zargar, Priyank Khandelwal, Jaydeep Sirpurkar, Kedar Prasad
Kuswaha.

Issue: It is required to decide whether the rejection of candidature of petitioner by respondents is

justified or not.

In the present case, petitioner alleges the following: The Petitioner has challenged the process of
selection for appointment of X-ray technician made by the respondents is arbitrary discriminatory
and against the natural justice.
The respondents have deliberately discharged the petitioner and not called him for interview for the
appointment of X-ray technician.

In the present case, respondent alleges the following: The petitioner did not hold the minimum
eligibility qualification of experience.
The employment exchange without examining the issue with regard to experience possessed by the
petitioner furnished the list.

Facts: The respondents had invited applications for the appointment of several post including X-
ray technician vide its advertisement dated 10/12/2007 which was published on Rojgar Samachar
dated 12/01/2008. Petitioner being unemployed, made an application for registration in
employment exchange District Katni. He was registered on 18/09/2008 vide registration number
3548/2007. The employment exchange Katni forwarded the name of petitioner in the office of
respondents being he is X-ray technician. Simultaneously the petitioner also submitted his
application before the respondent no 4 on 02/02/2008 through courier service which was received
in the office of the respondent no 4 on 02/02/2008 itself. The respondent no 4 wrote a letter to
Petitioner and said that to furnish the bio-data in a proper manner before 25th February, 2008 in his
office. In compliance petitioner again furnish the bio-data along with other certificates which are
required for appointment of X-ray technician.
The petitioner came to know that the interview has to be taken on 24/09/2008 in the second week
of September 2008 but no interview letter has been served to the petitioner. Then he moved an
application before the respondent no 4 on 13/09/2008 for consideration of his application and again
submitted all documents along with the said application. The respondent did not pay any heed to
the application submitted by the petitioner then he moved an application before sub divisional
officer Vijay Raghav Garh on 15/09/2008 for taking action against the appointment by the
respondents. The SDO vide his communication dated 18/09/2008 asked for an explanation from the
answering respondent with regard to objection of the petitioner for the appointment.
The respondent replied on 21/09/2008 to the SDO that petitioner is having experience of only three
months. Therefore the candidature offered by the petitioner was not considered for his appointment
to the post of X-ray technician on the grounds that the petitioner was not having minimum requisite
experience of one year. The respondent also pointed out that petitioner holds experience prior to
the date which he obtained diploma certificate. According it was stated that the selection committee
therefore did not consider the experience certificate and rightly rejected the candidature of the
petitioner.
The respondents had completed their formalities for appointment of X-ray technician on
24/09/2008 and in that proceeding, none of the local area’s candidate was called for interview. The
petitioner had no any alternative, expeditious remedy, filed the instant writ petition under art 226.

Relief sought by the petitioner:

 Quash the entire selection proceedings for the post of X-ray technician made by the
respondent.
 To grant any order as deemed proper in favour of the petitioner.
 To direct the respondents not to declare and appoint an X-ray technician till the final
decision of this writ petition, in the interest of justice.

Relief sought by the respondent:

 The writ petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and is devoid any
substance. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Current status: The petitioner had no any alternative, expeditious remedy, filed the instant writ
petition under art 226 vide WP no 12363 of 2008, which is currently pending for final hearing.

CASE BRIEF-04
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHAYA PRADESH
BRIEF OF
NIRMALA BAI AND OTHERS (PETITIONERS)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS)
WRIT PETITON NO. - 11111/2016

Petitioner’s counsel: Sidharth Radhe Lal Gupta, Amit Garg, Radhe Lal Gupta, Sant kumar Garg
Respondent’s counsel: Advocate General, Rajiv Chandra Shrivastava(R4), Saurabh
Shrivastava(R-4), Abishek Dilraj (R-4)

Issue: Whether the action of respondent of not making acquisition of land, acquired by the
respondent is illegal and arbitrary?

In the present case, the petitioner alleges the following:

 The action of respondents of not making acquisition of the lands, which was acquired by
the respondent no 4 is illegal and arbitrary.

 The land of the petitioner is being used for the purpose of mining for the last 40 years and
from the year 1991 no compensation is provided as per agreement entered into between the
petitioner and respondent no 4, which is illegal and arbitrary.

 No service has been provided to a member of agriculturist, whose lands have been acquired.

 The renewal of lease has been extended by the government from time to time without the
consent of agriculturist, which is illegal and arbitrary.

Facts: In this matter, the petitioners are challenging the illegal and arbitrary action of respondent
no- 4 that is General Manager, Bokaro Steel Limited Kuteshwar Limestone Mines, for the purpose
of mining limestone situated in Gariatalai Jararoda and Konia, Patwari halka no 36/71, area
149.705 hectares which belongs to several villagers including the petitioner. In the year 1977, the
aforesaid land was taken on lease by the respondent no 4 from the petitioners and on 27/12/77, the
respondent no 4 made an application before SDO for determining the compensation vide order
dated 6/11/1982 issue by the SDO, the aforesaid was acquired by respondent no. 4 for the purpose
of mining limestone on some conditions and compensation was fixed for 20 years with effect from
10/06/1971 to 09/06/1991. In the said order one condition was that service be also given to one
member of each land owners. From the year 1991 the petitioner made several request for making
the acquisition of land but till date nothing has been done. The SDO has also written a letter dated
09/04/2013 to respondent no 4, in which he has specifically mentioned that under section 274/4, for
the mining, the lease of land will be permissible up to 20 years. The land of the petitioners is being
used for the purpose of mining of lime stones for the last 40 years and from 1991 no compensation
is provided to the petitioners. No action has been taken by the respondent. Thereafter on
16/09/1993 the State government vide order has extended the said lease for a further period of 10
years.

Relief sought by the petitioner:

 The renewal of the lease should not be further extended by the government without the
consent of the agriculturist.

 Provide compensation to the petitioners from the year 1991.

 Provide service to one member of each agriculturist, whose lands have been acquired or the
lease of the respondent no 4 be cancelled and the land be provided to the petitioner after
making the same for agricultural purpose.

Current status: The petitioner had no any alternative, expeditious remedy, filed the instant writ
petition on 30/06/2016 under article 226 vide WP no 11111 of 2016, which is currently pending.
Through the last order dated 3/01/2017 the Court ordered that the petition is admitted for hearing.
As respondents are served and are represented, no further notice is necessary. Respondents may file
reply in the matter. The respondent no 4 need to ascertain whether they have filed a reply or not.
 CASE BRIEF-05
BRIEF OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED KTR
VERSUS
M/s SOHANLAL AND COMPANY

Issue: Whether the claim of difference amount of Rs 60,46,560/- was justified or not.

In the present case, Petitioner alleges the following:

There was a breach of contract by the respondent. Despite several request, the contractor did
not commence the work, due to which loss have incurred to SAIL.

Facts: This matter arises out of failure to perform the work by the contractor awarded by the
KTR SAIL to M/s Sohanlal and Company for the excavation of waste removal for a quantity of
9,12,000 Te for a period of 18 with effect from 10/06/2019. However the agency could not
commence the work. Despite several request for the commencement of the work, the contractor
failed to execute the work. A letter no. RMD/KTR/MIN/2020-21/133 dated 11/11/2020 was
sent Sohan Lal and Company intimating that the work awarded has been cancelled and the
same work was awarded to M/s SS and company vide subsequent work order no
RMD/K/CC/WO/18 of 2020-2021 dated 10/11/2020 with risk and cost to M/s Sohanlal and
Company. After cancelling the work order of Contractor, a letter no RMD/KTR/MIN/2020-
21/134 dated 12/11/2020 was issued to the M/s Sohan Lal and Company for recovery of Rs.
60,46,560. Further the agency was advised to deposit the differential amount of the company
vide letter no RMD/KTR/GM(Mines)2020/139 dated 28/11/2020 and once again reminded vide
our letter no RMD/KTR/GM(mines)2020/150 dated 05/12/2020. In spite of the same the
respondents has not responded till date.
Thereafter, a notice to conciliate as per the clause 10.1 of GCC was issued to M/s Sohan Lal
and Company vide email and speed post dated 03/03/2021 (email [email protected]
provided by the contractor to communicate in the normal business proceedings). As the hard
copy of notice was received by Sohan Lal and Company on 11/03/2021, the contractor was
required to select one of the three names proposed. Since one month notice period lapsed, it
was considered to be a failure of conciliation.
Accordingly, Arbitration proceedings as per clause 16.2 of GCC were initiated. A notice for
arbitration dated 03/05/2021, the contractor was advised to choose any one name out of the
following three names suggested. The Contractor has received the notice via email on
03/05/2021 and the hard copy was received on 17/05/2021 but failed to intimate any one name
for the appointment of arbitrator within fifteen days.

Relief sought by the petitioner: The recovery of difference amount from the respondent i.e.
Rs 60,46,560/-.

Current Status: Shri T K Guha Roy,ex-GM(RMD) was appointed as an arbitrate to adjudicate

the disputes and also claims of both the parties as stated and will proceed accordingly.
 CASE BRIEF-06

BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT JABALPUR, M.P.

ANUSUIYA PRASAD RAJAK (CLAIMANT)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (RESPONDENT)
Original application no 915 0f 2013

Issue: It is required to decide whether the applicant is eligible for compassionate employment or
not.

In the present case, applicant alleges the following: The inaction done by the respondents
despite the several applications, compelled to do laboring.

In the present case, respondent alleges the following: The applicant is not eligible for the
compassionate employment as according to circular being no.RMD/K/PERS/F-14/2009/321 dated
11/02/2009 was in operation with effect from 01/07/2007 to 31/12/2008. The said circular provide
as follows- “Dependents who are otherwise eligible but already enrolled and availing benefits
under the Employee’s family benefit scheme shall not be eligible for compassionate employment”.

Facts: This application was filed by Shri Anusuiya Prasad Rajak before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jabalpur for a direction to SAIL KTR for his recruitment under the compassionate
appointment in any available post in accordance with his educational qualification, as his father late
Biren Rajak, personal no. 669434 was woking in Kuteshar Limestone mines as technician in the
Mechanical department. Late Biren Rajak while in service was admitted in Jabalpur hospital and
research Centre and expired therein on 17/12/2007. The deceased employee during the time of
employment nominated his wife Smt. Kemli Bai to receive the accumulation in respect of PF and
gratuity in case of his death. Smt. Kemli Bait h nominee and the widow of late Biren Rajak, applied
for payment of the amount of Provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and SAIL employee’s
superannuation benefit fund (SESBF).Consequently, the company released the amount to the
nominee.
Scheme: “As per the SESBF scheme if the nominee of the deceased employee deposit equivalent
amount of the PF and Gratuity amounts of the deceased employee with the company, the nominee
would be entitled to monthly payment equivalent to his basic pay DA last drawn.

Such monthly payment shall continue till the normal day on which the employee concerned would
have attained the age of superannuation, had the employee been in the service of the company”.
The nominee of the deceased employee opted the benefit of this scheme vide letter 01/03/2008 and
became the member of this scheme. She was granted enrolment of EFBS vide letter no
RMD/KTR/P&AEFBS/3027 dated 14/03/2008. The nominee of the deceased deposited the amount
of PF and gratuity with the company vide cheque no 5777920 date 03/03/2008 for Rs 7,86,520/-.
As per scheme, Shri Kamla Bai is getting Rs 13,499/- per month from the company, commencing
from 5/03/2008 and the same amount will be paid up to the date of 31/08/2015 i.e. the normal date
of superannuation of the deceased employee. Thereafter Kemli Bai vide application requested the
company to provide employment on compassionate ground to her son namely Anusuiya Prasad
Rajak due to premature death of her husband.

Relief sought by the applicant: Provide compassionate employment to the applicant as the family
of the deceased employee is in indigent circumstances. However appointment shold not be rejected
merely on the ground that the family of the deceased government severvant has received the
benefits under the various welfare scheme.

Relief sought by the respondent: In the case of death of the deceased employee was due to “Diab
M, decempeneated cirrhosis of liver and upper GI bleeding”. Therefore, the disease is not coming
within the diseases mentioned in the circular (failure of kidneys, Heart stroke, Cancer) As such the
prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable. Moreover the aforesaid clause also provides that the
dependent who has enrolled and availing benefits under the EFBS scheme shall not be eligible for
compassionate employment. Since the nominee of the deceased employee enrolled membership
and availed the benefit, as such the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate employment.
 Conclusion

The evolution of Section 17 of the Act makes it evident that the arbitral tribunals are now
empowered to deal with interim measures independently without any intervention of the courts.
This allows the parties to divulge in a pro-arbitration stance rather than referring their disputes
and then seeking interim orders before the courts. Further, the interplay of provisions of the CPC
shows that while the arbitral tribunal has adequate power to operate independently, it may follow
the underlying principles which would provide assistance to it for passing a decision.
Considering the above, a sub-provision maybe inserted to Section 17 of the Act which shall
allow the Tribunal to adjudicate the contempt thereby increasing the flexibility of the arbitrators
and reducing the burden from the courts. Unless the arbitrator disregards the principle of natural
justice in the arbitration proceedings such as being radically wrong or vicious in proceedings or
disregarding the fundamental rules of evidence, the Court cannot interfere.

The latest amendments in arbitration laws are more responsive to contemporary requirements.
The major setbacks in the arbitration process have been well addressed in the latest amendments.
However, a law is said to be effective, only when it is successfully implemented. It is a trite law
– “Justice delayed is justice denied”, especially in commercial disputes. The latest amendments
have introduced the time limits and fast track procedures in arbitration. With the increase in
awareness and effective implementation of the arbitration laws, the ineffectiveness of the
arbitration process can be overwhelmed.