MALLIKARJUN Vs. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to the Notification issued by the Gulbarga University inviting tenders for construction of an Indoor Stadium, the appellant herein submitted his tender. His tender was accepted and on 21st May, 1993, an agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent-University in connection with the work to be carried out by the appellant. The estimated cost of construction for the work order issued to the appellant was for Rs.91,88,909/-. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the work order, the appellant completed the construction. Certain disputes arose in relation whereto the appellant herein invoked the arbitration clause. It is not in dispute that the Superintending Engineer, P. W. D., Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarga, ex-officio, was named to decide such disputes. Before the Arbitrator, the parties filed their claims and counter claims. The University also filed certain counter-claims. After hearing the parties, the Superintending Engineer, Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarga, who acted as an Arbitrator, gave the Award. However, no copy of the Award was furnished to the appellant as a result of which the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of mandamus directing the Arbitrator to deliver a certified copy of the Award given by him. In compliance of the directions of the High Court, the Arbitrator sent a certified copy of the Award dated 30th July, 1999. After the receipt of the certified copy of the Award, the appellant put the Award for execution before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga. The Gulbarga University filed an objection in the execution petition filed by the appellant purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Executing Court rejected the said objection on 19th October, 2000. Aggrieved, the Gulbarga University filed a Civil Revision Petition No. 3719 of 2000 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court of Karnataka.

(2.) In the said Civil Revision Petition a plea was raised that the purported agreement on the basis whereof the dispute between the parties was referred to the Superintending Engineer, Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarga, was not an arbitration agreement and consequently, the Award made by him is not one made in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The High Court accepted the plea taken by the University. Consequently, the execution proceedings were set aside and the Civil Revision Petition was allowed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.

(3.) Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that Clause 30 of the contract agreement constitutes an arbitration agreement as the same fulfills all the criteria laid down, therefore, and, thus, the High Court must be held to have erred in passing the impugned judgment.