KISHAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) --

(2.) THESE two cases have been referred for decision by a larger Bench. One was referred by me. and the other by Mr. Justice Avadh Echari. They came before each of us sitting singly on the Original Side. Both the cases have now been heard conjointiv as the arbitration clauses round which they turn are substantially the same, and the questions which have arisen are associated. First, we will deal with the case referred by me.

(3.) IT seems plain to us that section 8(l)(a) cannot be resorted to in the present case, for the sinequa non is that the arbitration agreement must be one which 'provides that the reference shall be to one or more arbitrators to be appointed by consent of the parties.' That is not what the arbitration clause here 'provides'. On -the contrary, it vests the power to nominate an arbitrator exclusively in the Chief Engineer; and, in one event, in the Administrative Head of the Central Public Works Department. 'Provides' is used in the sub-section to mean 'expressly stipulates.' When an arbitration agreement stipulates what the sub-section says, the sub-section applies. But, not otherwise. Other specific types of arbitration agreement are dealt with in section 9 and 10 of the Arbitration Act. They, too, state what the arbitration agreement must 'provide' for them to apply. None of these sections, 8, 9 or 10, are of general application in the sense that they may be applied to every known or conceivable form of arbitration agreement regardless of what it 'provides'.