NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Mool Chand Loharia who is a partner of the appellant-firm. He has brought to our notice various decisions of this court as well as of the various High courts. The firm had entered into in all 17 written agreements with the State government in respect of various works in three irrigation projects. The language of all the agreements was the same. The relevant clauses of the agreement which have given rise to the present controversy between the firm and the State government are clauses 22 and 23 which read as follows:

(2.) The three learned Judges of this court in Tipper Chand case after taking note of the clause which is identical in language to the present clause 23 on which reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant for spelling out an arbitration agreement, have held that the clause does not spell out an agreement for arbitration of the disputes. No doubt there is a subsequent decision of this court of two learned Judges in Rukmanibai Gupta v. Collector which has constructed a clause which fell for consideration there as a provision for referring the disputes to arbitration. That clause reads as follows:

(3.) The language of the above clause which found place in the agreement of mining lease between the appellant and the government which was being considered there is no pari materia with the language of the present clause 23. What is further, as pointed out herein above, a bench of the three learned Judges while interpreting the clause which is identical with the one which is before us has held that it does not provide for arbitration of the dispute. Hence the said decision which on all fours and of a larger bench is binding on us and cannot be disregarded in favour of the aforesaid judgment of this court