RADHEY SHYAM KATIYAR Vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant confined his submissions only to that part of the order challenged in appeal whereby the court below has directed that the restraint order dated May 28, 1987 shall remain in force till the submission of the award by the Arbitrator. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that in the first place the court below had no jurisdiction to issue injunction restraining the appellant from withdrawing the amount which is lying to his credit with the I.I.T. Kanpur, as according to the learned counsel that amount does not relate to the dispute which has been referred for arbitration. And, secondly, there was no valid jurisdiction for continuing the order of injunction issued earlier by the court below.

(3.) Before we consider these submissions we may dispose of a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent as to the maintainability of the appeal. By the order dated Dec. 16, 1987 against which the appeal has been filed the court below allowed the application filed by the plaintiff respondent under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act and directed that the disputes be referred to the arbitrator to be named by the parties by Dec. 22, 1987. It will thus be seen that till the passing of the impugned order the arbitrator had neither been named by the parties nor appointed by the court as contemplated by Sec. 20 (4) (as amended in Uttar Pradesh). That an order merely deciding to refer the dispute to arbitrator who has yet to be named is not appealable under Sec. 39 stands settled by a Division Bench of this Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Bombay, 1978 ALJ 1178 (DB). The Division Bench has ruled that an appeal under Sec. 39 can be filed only after the court has determined the person to whom the reference is to be made and has actually made an order referring the same to such a person. The Sec. docs not contemplate filing of an appeal at any earlier stage.