JAYKAY ASSOCIATES Vs. ISHWAR BHUVAN HOTELS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application is filed against order passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (JD) at Vadodara below application Exh. 11 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1360 of 1999 on 5/05/2001.

(2.) . The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as under: The respondent No.1 herein who is the original-plaintiff in the suit wanted to construct a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Rivera at Vadodara and for that purpose he had appointed the respondent No.3 herein who is the defendant No.2 in the suit as Architect Consultant. In pursuance of the authority conferred by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 engaged the petitioner who is the defendant No.3 in the suit for construction of the hotel project at Vadodara, that is for supervision work by an order dated 8/04/1987. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner had been appointed on behalf of the respondent No.1 by the respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner has accepted the said appointment and it was also approved by the respondent No.1. The petitioner started to execute the work as per the order and thereafter certain disputes arose between the parties. It was stated in the petition that as per Clause 9 of the Work Order dated 8/04/1987 given by the respondents No. 1 and 2 there was an arbitration clause and Architect was the Sole Arbitrator.

(3.) . It was further stated in the petition that the dispute arose between the petitioner on the one side and the respondent No.1 on the other side, which according to the arbitration clause has been referred to the respondent No.3 as Architect. The respondent No.3 was therefore seized with the matter as the Arbitrator. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner as well as the respondents No. 2 and 3, the respondent No.1 filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 1360/1999 in the Court of ld. Civil Judge (SD) at Vadodara for a declaration to the effect that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are not entitled to act as an Arbitrator for any dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent No.1 and the respondents No. 2 and 3 have not been chosen as Arbitrator by the respondent No.1 and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.3 from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings.