UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAI KISHAN PARUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions 638 and 639/1991 which are directed against the order of Subordinate Judge by which the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator stayed till the decision of the main petition. The respondent entered into a contract with the Union of India for the supply of meat and eggs during the period 1973-74. Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of the said contract. The respondent/contractor moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of Shri R.C. Jain, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, for appointment of an arbitrator and reference of the disputes between the parties.

(2.) . The Union of India filed a reply to the said application wherein it was stated that the Union of India has already appointed major General J.R.K. Batra as the arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Under these circumstances the Court ruled that since that arbitrator has already been appointed the application under Section 20 had become infructuous. However, on a petition udner Section 41 filed alongwith Section 20 application the Union of India was restrained from recovering and/or with-holding the payment of the bills and the security of the contractor in all his contracts till the adjudication of the disputes by the arbitrator. The award given by the arbitrator was set aside on' the ground that the arbitrator had gone beyond the scope of reference. Quarter Master General. Army Headquarters New Delhi again appointed Brig. A.S. Sumra and enlarged the scope of reference to decide upon the claim of Union of India also. The said arbitrator was removed by the Subordinate Judge and in his place with the mutual consent of the parties Brig. S.P. Talwar was appointed as an arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award which is pending before the Subordinate Judge for making rule of the Court. The Union of India after a lapse of 17 years have got appointed Brig. B.G. Shively, as an arbitrator to decide about its claims, The application was filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act for determining the effect of the arbitration agreement and the reference. It was pleaded in the application that the arbitration Clause had ceased to exist after the specifically mentioned time of six months and the agreement was no more in existence in terms of Clause (d) forming part of the contract. The demand for arbitration had to be made within a period of six months from the date of termination of the contract. The last date of supply was 31.3.1974 and the demand for arbitration could be made upto 30.9.1974. Alongwith this petition an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act was Filed for stay of the proceeding before the Arbitrator.