LACHMANNA B HORAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator on the basis of the dispute having arisen in the execution of contract taken by him from the respondent. Notice dated 22-1-1996 was served by the petitioner on the Chief Engineer. Reminder was sent on 2-2-1996 and ultimately this petition was filed on 3-9-1997.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the agreement does not contain any clause for arbitration. Clause 29 could not be construed as a clause for arbitration. Reliance is placed on the decision given in the case of State of U. P. v. Tipper Chand (1980) 2 SCC 341 : (AIR 1980 SC 1522) where there was clause empowering Superintending Engineer with power of supervision. The said clause 22 was as under (para 2 of AIR) :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent have also relied on the decision given in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Sudhakar Reddy M. F. A. Nos. 1552, 1553 and 1973/1993) D. D. 13-12-1994. Clause 30 of the agreement in this case was as under :-