B R ELECTRICALS Vs. CHAIRMAN TELECOM COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator. As per the case put up by the petitioner General Manager, Telecommunications(for short 'GMT'), Srinagar, Kashmir floated a tender on 21/8/1991 for the supply of PVC insulated twin galvanised wire. The petitioner responded to the said offer by submitting its tender which was accepted and agreement) dated 8/10/1991 arrived at between the GMT'and the petitioner for supply of the goods. It is further stated that the petitioner thereafter "supplied the goods to the respondents as per specifications mentioned in that agreement.

(2.) Sometime thereafter., various Circle Offices of the respondents placed similar/identical orders on the petitioner for supply" of "these goods which were also supplied. However, despite having supplied the specified goods to the respondents' various Circle Offices, the respondents have failed to pay the petitioner the outstanding amount of Rs.1,46,10,485.78 paisa. The petitioner sent various representations on 8/2/1993, 10/3/1993 and 23/6/1993 to the respondents requesting them to honour their commitment by paying the outstanding the amount. However, thereafter .the petitioner was surprised to receive letter dated 22/12/1993 issued by the Divisional Engineer," Telecommunication at Kumbakonam wherein it was stated that the payment of the outstanding 'hills raised by the petitioner, could not be made' as ' the Divisional Engineer had received instructions from the Directorate, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi to this effect. The legal notice dated 1/2/1995 was sent but as this did not yield the desired results, the petitioner filed' the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of, India in this court. However, vide order dated 5/10/1994 the said petition was dismissed on "the ground that the remedy of the petitioner was to file suit and not the. petition under Article 226 by resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction. That is how the present petition for appointment of an arbitrator has been filed as it is stated that clause 8 of the agreement dated 8/10/1991 contains the arbitration clause. This clause reads as under:

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, various preliminary objections are taken to the maintainability of the petitioner. Twin objections 'which were pressed at the time of arguments are stated below: 1. This'court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as no cause of action has arisen in Delhi . 2. None of the alleged contracts entered into by the petitioner contains an arbitration clause. The contract dated 8/10/1991 could not be pressed into service as this was the contract with GMT, Kashmir and the respective obligations of this contract had already been carried out. This contract had been completed and' the petitioner was given the payments under the orders of Jammu & Kashmir High Court. The amounts ' claimed' by the petitioner do not arise out of this contract dated 8/10/1991. The petitioner was claiming the amount on account of Supplies made to other circles for which admittedly there was no written contract, and therefore no arbitration clause. Therefore, there being no arbitration clause, the present petition is not maintainable. It may mentioned that in reply the respondents have stated that even Clause 8 of Agreement dated 8/10/1991 does not constitute arbitration agreement. But it was not argued.