DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER Vs. N.C. SINGERA RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of appeals the main question that arises for decision is whether the court has power or jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator not named in the arbitration agreement under S.20 (4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The broad common features of these appeals are thus: The main appellant in these appeals is the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway Headquarters, Madras and the respondents are the railway contractors who had undertaken railway contract work under the appellant. They have executed separate agreements with the appellant for carrying out the contract work on certain terms and conditions which are specified in the relative agreements. Since dispute and difference arose between the parties in relation to or arising out of the arbitration agreements the respondents filed applications under S.8 and 20 of the Act before the civil courts for compelling the appellants to file the arbitration agreements in court and to appoint an arbitrator by the court itself. The Trial Court after the enquiry appointed arbitrators not named in the arbitration agreement under S.20 (4) of the Act. The appellants being aggrieved by the Judgments and decrees so passed 'by the courts below have filed the present appeals. The respondents, inter alia, raised a preliminary objection that the present appeals are not maintainable under S.39 of the Act.

(3.) What confers jurisdiction on the arbitrators to adjudicate the difference and dispute between the parties is an arbitration agreement as defined in S.2 (a) of the Act. The terms and conditions contained in the agreement have decisive role to play in resolving the dispute in the process of arbitration. In the present context Clause.64 of the General Conditions of contract as amended upto 1986 is most relevant and it is applicable to all contracts involved in these cases. Hence the said clause is ectyped hereunder: