(1.) THESE eight appeals filed under section 39(1 )(iv)of the Arbitration Act arise out of eight suits instituted by the common respondent in these appeals before the Principal Subordinate Judge,Trivandrum under section 20 of the said Act praying that the arbitration agreement referred to in the plaints should be ordered to be filed in court and that an order of reference of "all disputes "should be made to the arbitrator,namely Sri M.U.Isaac,former Judge of this Court,to whose arbitration,it is alleged,the parties had agreed.The lower court by separate orders,the contents of which are almost identical,allowed the applications.It is against those orders passed by the court below that these appeals have been filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board which figured as the defendant in all the suits in the court below.
(2.) THE respondent in these appeals who is the plaintiff in the suit had entered into eight different agreements with the defendant Board for the execution of certain works in connection with the construction of the Kulamavu Masonry High Dam in the Idikki Hydro Electric Project.As per clause 17 contained in those agreements,in the event of dispute arising between the contractor and the department "regarding the application of this contract "the same shall be submitted for arbitration to the Board whose word shall be binding on the contractor.The case of the plaintiff is that after the completion of the work when differences arose between the parties it was agreed between them that in the place of the original arbitrator named in the agreement,namely,the Electricity Board itself,the dispute may be referred to the arbitration of Sri M.U.Isaac,retired Judge of this Court.The plaintiff has produced along with the plaints in all the suits a copy of a letter written to him by the Secretary of the Kerala State Electricity Board on 10th August 1977 agreeing in writing that the "existing disputes "arising out of the contracts in question may be referred to the arbitration of Sri M.U.Isaac.The said document has been produced along with the plaint as Annexure A -1.In the court below the parties were at variance as regards the points in dispute in respect of which they had agreed for a reference to the arbitration of Sri Isaac.The Board also took a contention that the arbitrator "Sri Isaac -had already entered on the reference and that hence the plaintiff was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court under section 20 of the Act.Another contention taken by the Board before the court below was that it had agreed to refer only the ''existing disputes "to the arbitration of Sri Isaac and that hence the points should be formulated by the court below incorporating in the reference only the subject -matter of those disputes which were existing on the date of Annexure A -1 and omitting from the purview of reference points on which disputes had been subsequently raised by the contractor.The lower court rejected both the aforesaid contentions put forward by the Board and made an omnibus reference to the arbitrator without any specification of the points on which the adjudication is to be conducted by the arbitrator.The appellant before us contends that the order so passed by the court below is illegal and has to be set aside.
(3.) EVEN though the counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions taken on behalf of his client before court below that the suit under section 20 is not maintainable on the ground that the arbitrator had already entered on the reference we do not find any force in this argument.We agree with the view expressed by the court below that the arbitrator had not actually entered on reference as on the date of the institution of the present suit filed under section 20 of the Act.