UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. GORAKH MOHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the Union of India against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Varanasi, allowing an application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act.

(2.) THE application was made by the respondent, Gorakh Mohandas, praying that an arbitrator be appointed to hear and decide certain matters in dispute between the parties, In the application, the respondent represented that he was proprietor of the National Trading Company, Allahabad, that as such proprietor he had entered into a contract with the Union of India and the Northern Railway for the supply of stone ballast, that one of the conditions of the contract stipulated was that payment would be made regularly in respect of supplies effected every month and that there was also a condition providing for arbitration in case of a dispute between the parties. It was alleged that although he had made supplies during January and February 1961 and had submitted his bill accordingly, payment had not been made to him for one reason or another. It was said that a dispute had arisen between the parties in respect of the dues payable on account of the supplies made and also in respect of damages suffered on account of the, failure to make payment. A notice dated July 12, 1961 was served upon the General Manager, Northern Railway, demanding payment on account of the supplies made and damages suffered, and requiring him, in case he did not pay and disputed the claim, to appoint an arbitrator for the settlement of the dispute in accordance with Clause 64 of the General Conditions of contract. Upon service of this notice it was said the Railway administration paid the amount due on account of the supplies effected but did not pay the damages claimed, nor did it appoint any arbitrator to decide the dispute.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge found that a dispute had arisen between the parties which required reference to arbitration, that the notice requesting appointment of an arbitrator was legal and valid, and that the request of the respondent for the appointment of an arbitrator not having been attended to he was entitled to apply for the appointment of an arbitrator.