UOI AND ORS. Vs. AMAR PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order is dated 10.01.2008; the preliminary issue relating to the maintainability of the suit had been decided by the said order. It was noted that the suit as filed by the plaintiff Amar Pal Singh is maintainable in the present form; this was on the objection raised by the defendant in his written statement that the contract between the parties contained Clause 25 which provided for arbitration and in case of disputes arising between the parties, the matter should have been referred for arbitration and a suit was not maintainable. In view of the aforenoted objection, the aforenoted preliminary issue had been framed which had been answered in favour of the plaintiff. Record shows that the plaintiff Amar Pal Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,02,910/ - for the work which had been advertised by the Union of India in which the plaintiff was enlisted as a contractor; the parties had entered into an agreement bearing No. 06/AE/4 -I/IDiv/2002/2003 along with general terms and conditions of a contract for completing the job work which had been given to the plaintiff. Clause 25 of the said agreement contained the arbitration clause; there is no dispute to this factum.

(2.) RECORD shows that after the plaint had been filed, a written statement had been filed by the defendant wherein a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the suit because of the existence of the arbitration clause was taken; in the written statement the defendant had also answered all the contentions of the plaintiff on its merits. Replication had also been filed. Issues were framed on 28.02.2007 and issue No. 1 (which as per record) relates to the maintainability of the present suit was accordingly treated as a preliminary issue.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY no formal application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') had been filed; the written statement had been filed; it is not in dispute that in this written statement all the merits of controversy had been purported to be answered by the defendant. The requirement of Section 8 of the said Act had not been met with.