HARYANA BREWERIES LIMITED Vs. BOMBAY AMMONIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application moved under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act holding that the applicant had not been proved to have been ready and willing to have the disputes determined through arbitrator. THE appellant says that the learned Judge was wrong in holding so. Hence this appeal.

(2.) THE facts need only a thumb-nail description. Admittedly there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. Admittedly, the disputes forming the subject-matter of the suit instituted by the respondents falls within the ambit and scope of the said agreement. Admitted also is the position that the appellant had moved the application under section 34 of the Act without having taken any steps in the proceedings. However, despite all this the application did not find favour with the learned trial Judge.

(3.) THOUGH not referred to or relied upon, I am conscious of some of the judgments which say that initial omission by defendant in appointment of arbitration is not to be taken in account [ See :Food Corporation of India, Ahmedabad v. M/s. G.T. Corporation; AIR 1981 Gujarat 269 ] and that even where the party stated before the institution of the suit that he was unwilling to go to arbitration it would be of no consequence (See: Food Corporation of India v. Thakur Shipping Co., Bombay; AIR 1980 Goa). However, the examination of the facts of those cases would reveal to the discerning eye that the observations so made were on account of the pecular facts in those cases.