(1.) THE appellant is the Managing Partner of a registered firm of contractors. He had filed O.S. No. 411 of 1981 under S.20 of the Arbitration Act. That suit was dismissed on the finding that the contract which the appellant had entered into with the respondents did not provide for reference to the arbitrator. Hence this appeal
(2.) THE appellant had submitted a tender for construction of a building for the Government Secondary School Quilandy. Consequent on the acceptance of his tender, he executed an agreement on 18-11-1978 with the second respondent. According to the appellant, Cl. 14 of the Form of Tender and Cls. 24, 24(a) and 44 of Form No. 83 were expressly mate part of the agreement. THEse clauses were to the effect, that in case of any dispute or difference that may arise in the working of the contract, the same should be referred to arbitration before the Government Arbitrator, at the instance of either party. Several disputes arose between the parties regarding execution of the work. It was because his request for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator was not allowed that he filed O.S. No. 411 of 1981.
(3.) THE trial court considered the question whether the disputes were liable to be referred for Arbitration under the terms of the contract. THE trial court found that Cl. 44 has the only effect of incorporating general conditions forming part of the contract documents and that general Cl. 73 in Madras Detailed Standard Specifications which necessarily formed part of the notice inviting tender and therefore of the agreement could not-survive the deletion of Cls. 3, 24 and 24(a), which related specifically to arbitration. Those clauses were scored off. THE trial court also found that in the light of the specific deletion of Cls. 24 and 24(a), it was not reasonable to hold that Cl. 14 of the Tender Form was incorporated in the agreement by virtue of the provisions of Cl. 44 in Form No. 83. THE court held further that the appellant having Signed Form No. 83, from which Cls. 24 and 24(a) relating to Arbitration were deleted, could not be heard to seek arbitration in spite of such deletion. Appellant submits, that Cl. 44 of Form No. 83 and Cl. 14 of the tender notice do survive and such survival in the contract willingly entered into between the parties do provide for a reference of dispute arising out of the contract to the Government Arbitrator.