KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. VAIJANATH TUBEWELLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was listed for admission. The respondent had entered caveat. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, the petition was heard on merits and disposed of by this order. The respondents in Arbitration Case No. 387 of 1992 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga, have presented this petition against the order dated 5-1-1994 directing them to express their choice regarding the arbitrators to refer the dispute for arbitration.

(2.) THE respondent herein is the applicant/ plaintiff in the arbitration case before the learned Civil Judge. That, under the provisions Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act'), the parties should have been described as plaintiff and defendants. But, they have been described as petitioner and respondents therein. Hence they are referred to as plaintiff and defendants in this order.

(3.) IT is stated in the petition that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on the contract business and it entered into a contract with the first defendant in respect of construction of office cum shopping complex of the Karnataka Housing Board, Gulbarga Division. IT is the case of the plaintiff that under the terms and conditions of the contract that the plaintiff shall complete the construction within a period of 15 months including the monsoon extending from 15th June to, 15th September and, the defendants were to supply the materials such as cement and steel as required for construction. However due to the non-availability of the materials at the Divisional Stores, the defendants failed to supply cement and steel as and when required and necessary instructions were also not given, for the absence of the required technical personnel at the site and hence the work could not be completed. Further, it is stated by the plaintiff that differences arose between the parties resulting in non-completion of the work entrusted and as a result the defendants withheld the payment to the plaintiff and the plaintiff company suffered financially. Hence they addressed number of letters to the defendants for making payment at least for the construction done, for which also there was no response from the defendants and therefore ultimately they have requested the second defendant to adjudicate on the dispute which was also not acceded to. Therefore they have filed an application under Section 20 of the Act for relief mentioned in the preceding paragraph.