P S ABDULLA Vs. DIRECTORFOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTEPEECHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions raise the same question. They arise in proceedings initiated under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred 'to as 'the Act'). The question concerns the exercise of the power of a civil court under Section 28 of the Act.

(2.) P.S. Abdulla is a P. W. D. contractor. He tendered for the works in the Forest Institute, peechi. His ten- ders were accepted. The works were therefore entrusted with him. Agreements in the stipulated forms were executed. Five agreements were thus executed for five distinct works -- those relating to the library, vehicle shed and stores, economics and statistics block, pathology and entomology block and administration block. The agreements contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in the event of disputes between the contracting parties. The Chief Engineer (Arbitration) is the named sole arbitrator.

(3.) IT was on 28-10-1979 that the petitioner submitted his claims before the Arbitrator under Ext. B2-This was a detailed petition and was styled by the petitioner as 'statement of facts and claims'. All necessary particulars of the claims and the basis thereof had been indicated therein. A copy of it had been sent simultaneously to the respondent. As is usual in such cases, the Arbitrator, by Ext. B3 letter dated 27-11- 1979, called upon the claimant (the contractor) to forward his 'statement of case' not later than 27-12-1979. Pleadings of each parties with counterclaims were to be filed on or before 27-1-1980. The respondent, however, was apparently awaiting the receipt of the 'statement of case' referred to in the Arbitrator's notice and which had to be filed on or before 27-12-1979. As it did not receive the statement of the case, by Ext. B4 the respondent intimated the Arbitrator about its inability in submit-ting its pleadings by the stipulated time of 27-1-1980. Thereupon, the petitioner's counsel by Ext. B5 addressed to the Arbitrator, pointed out that the claim had been already submitted by him on 20-10-1979 with copy to the respondent, and that "it may not be necessary to forward a copy of the same claim". They confirmed and clarified that the claim statement of 28-10-1979 may be treated as the 'statement of the case. on 3-3-1980. the respondent sought further instructions of the Arbitrator in the matter (vide Ext. B6). The Arbitrator by Ext. B7 dated 7-3-1980 directed the respondent to file its defence statement on or before 21-3-1980. This was in reply to the aforesaid letter of the respondent. Ext. B6 dated 3-3-1980. A further communication dated 14-3-1980 (Ext. B8). in reply to the earlier communication dated 24-1-1980 of the respondent was sent, also directing the filing of the defence statement on or before 21-3-1980. On that day the claimant submitted to the Arbitrator detailed statements of claim and forwarded copies thereof to the respondent Ext. B9. In essence, it appears to be the computation in terms of money of the various claims made by him and the working details thereof. On 20-3-1980. the respondent wrote a detailed letter (Ext. B10) to the Arbitrator, pointing out inter alia, that Exts. B7 and B8 had been received by it only on 17-3-1980 and 19-3-1980, and that the detailed statement of the claim of the contractor had been received only on 183-1980. IT was complained that the claimant had not stated any reason for the delay and default in the submission of his claim earlier and that it had not received any orders from the Arbitrator permitting the claim and detailed statement to be taken on file. The respondent requested for rejection of the claim of the contractor. and sought specific orders on: