STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HARBHAGWAN HARBHAJANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2001 passed by the learned IInd additional District Judge, Nanded in an appeal bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 133/2000 filed by the present revision applicant.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this revision application are briefly stated below. The respondent No. 1, who is an engineering Contractor, entered into a contract regarding execution of certain engineering works with the revision applicant on or about 21st January, 1988. The work was to be completed within a period of eighteen calender months i. e. with effect from 20th july, 1989. Only a part of the work was carried out by the respondent No. 1 and he did not complete the remaining work within the stipulated time. Therefore, the work was withdrawn from respondent No. l and joint measurements were carried out and final bill was prepared on 14th May, 1993. The respondent No. l did not accept the correctness of the final bill and by a letter dated 9th September, 1999 submitted a claim to the revision applicant. By letter dated 13th october, 1999 the claim was rejected by the revision applicant. The contract between the revision applicant and the respondent No. l contained arbitration clause. Clause No. 52 of the agreement provides that all disputes and differences in respect of which decision has not been final and conclusive would be referred for arbitration to a sole arbitrator to be appointed in the manner mentioned therein. The respondent No. 1 thereafter proceeded to appoint respondent No. 2 who is a retired chief Engineer of the State of Maharashtra, as an arbitrator. Revision applicant objected to the reference on the ground that the dispute was not referable to the arbitration. The revision applicant further contended that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 made by the respondent No. 1 was contrary to the law and contrary to the contract, and therefore, the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration. Apprehending that the respondent No. 2 would proceed with the arbitration, the revision applicant filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 106/2000 praying for a declaration that the letter issued by the respondent No. 1 demanding arbitration was void and further declaration that the arbitration meeting called by the respondent no. 2 was illegal and void. In the said suit, the revision applicant also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the arbitration. By an order dated 27th September, 2000, the learned civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded dismissed the said application and rejected the prayer for interim injunction. Misc. Civil appeal No. 134/2000 filed by the revision applicant challenging that order was also dismissed by the learned IInd Additional district Judge, Nanded by an order dated 5th may, 2001. That judgment and order is impugned in this revision application.