UNION OF INDIA Vs. FATEH BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been filed under Section 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940. The Order impugned dated 21st June, 1996, is passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco da Gama in Special Civil Suit No. 39/91, whereby directions have been issued to file the Arbitration Agreement in Court. The disputes and differences which arose between the plaintiff and the defendants have been referred by the impugned order to the Sole Arbitration of an Engineer, Officer to be appointed by the defendant no. 3.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: a work order was issued to the respondent (original plaintiff) to carry out certain works for the appellants. On 12th January, 1989, a final bill and no claim certificate was signed by the respondent stipulating thereby that he had no other demands on the appellants. On 9th May, 1989, the appellants received a letter from the respondent requesting them to settle certain disputes. Subsequently, on 16th June, 1989, a request was made by the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the parties. This request was denied by the appellants on 26th June, 1989. Thereafter, the respondent engaged in correspondence with the appellants and ultimately, on 31st January, 1991, raised a claim on the appellants. Since the appellants did not accede to the demand of the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator, the respondent filed an application on 26th March, 1991 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for appointment of an Arbitrator. By their written statement, the appellants urged that here was no arbitral dispute as there was no contract subsisting nor were there any claims remaining to be paid to the respondent pursuant to the work carried out by him. The issues were framed by the trial Court. These issues are as follows:-1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are required to file original agreement in Court? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the disputes and differences are there which require to be referred for arbitration?

(3.) WHETHER the defendants prove that they are bound by Clause 70 of the Agreement? (It appears that there is some typing mistake and this issue should be read as to whether the defendants prove that they are not bound by the Clause 70 of the Agreement?)