SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH ZONE, U.P. RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not a matter of dispute, that there was a contrac­tual agreement between the parties. In the aforesaid contractual agreement, Clause 18 is relevant to the present controversy. Clause 18 is, accordingly, being extracted hereunder:-

(2.) IN furtherance of the letter dated 8.6.2004, two orders came to be passed by the respondent, first of which was dated 13.7.2004. By the aforesaid order, the General Manager (North Zone), U.P.R.N.N. Ltd. took a decision on the dispute raised by the petitioner. Through the second communication dated 16.7.2004, the respondent informed the petitioner that the contract executed between the parties did not conceive of an arbitration clause, and as such, it was not essential for the respondent to appoint an arbitrator.

(3.) IT is essential to first adjudicate upon the jurisdictional issue, namely, whether the contractual agreement executed between the parties, postulates arbitration in case of a dispute (arising out of the said contract). The determi­nation on the instant issue will depend on Clause 18 of the contractual agree­ment (which has been extracted in the opening paragraph of this order). In or­der to substantiate his contention that the aforesaid clause envisages an arbi­tration, in case of a dispute, learned Counsel for the petitioner has first placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal and others v. Haripada Santra. AIR 1990 Cal 83. In so far as the arbitration clause, which was the subject matter of consideration before the Calcutta High Court, is concerned, the same is decipherable from the averments made in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Paragraph 1 of the judgment is being extracted hereunder: