JAI KRISHAN PARUTHI Vs. D S PUNIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J.-

(2.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Misc. (Main) 147/93, Jai Krishan Pruthi v. D.S. Puma and others as also Civil Miss. (Main) 151/93 Jai Krishan Pruthi v. D. S. Puma, since they arise out of the same judgment dated 12th March, 1993 of Shri Dilbagh Singh Punia, Sub Judge, Delhi and thus, can be disposed of together.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the petitioner who was aggrieved from the actions of the Union of India on account of which he got arbitrator appointed to adjudicate upon his claim. He has further submitted that in the arbitration clause in the agreement it has specifically been provided that any dispute could be referred to the arbitrator within six months from the date of termination of the contract and the Union of India cannot now claim a reference to the arbitrator beyond the limitation. He has also submitted that while dismissing the application, the learned Lower Court has committed material irregularity in not deciding the question with regard to the limitation and the objection that the arbitration clause stands exhausted. It would, at this stage, be relevant to quote Clause 21 (A) of the contract entered into between the petitioner and Union of India, which reads :