SUSHILA SETH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the contractor who by an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act had claimed that the dispute between the contractor and the respondent. Government of Madhya Pradesh, be referred to arbitration. The application was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that Clause 25 of the contract designating the arbitrator was vague and it could not be ascertained from it as to which particular Chief Engineer was to be the arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The Government had contended that Clause 25 of the contract did not amount to arbitration agreement at all. But that contention was negatived by the learned single Judge.

(2.) THE undisputed facts out of which these questions for decision arose are briefly as below: THE contract was entered into between the parties on 16.4.1957 by which the appellant was to do construction of cross drainage and cross-communication works or the right main canal groups I and II in the Chambal Project in Madhya Pradesh. Clause 25 of the contract was as below: