R N PATTIWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against orders dated 20-2-1987 rejecting the applications purported to be under section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The appeals raise a common question arising out of common facts and hence proposed to be disclosed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellants is a partnership firm and entered into a contract with the respondent for construction of canal. THE work orders were issued in favour of the appellants. According to the appellants, dispute arose between the parties due to certain breach committed by the non-applicant. According to them, Clause 30 of the agreement provides for arbitration of dispute. THErefore, they have served with a notice on the non-applicant to submit a dispute for arbitration of the Superintending Engineer. It was contended that the Arbitrator-the Superintending Engineer entered into arbitration proceedings but subsequently has abandoned the same without completing. THE appellants, therefore, applied under section 8 of the Arbitration Act to the Civil Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.

(3.) THE learned trial Court reproduced Clause 30 of the agreement in para 5 of the impugned order. Precisely this clause provides that on all questions relating to the matters specified in the clause, the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the circle shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the contract. THEir Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case, cited supra, considered the Clause 22 of U.P. Government which is in substance synonymous and analogous to Clause 30 provided in the contract in these proceedings. THE Supreme Court has held on interpretation of Clause 22 of the U.P. Government, did not mean as an Arbitration clause. It did not contain any express Arbitration agreement nor it could be implied. According to their Lordships, the clause has merely vested in the Superintending Engineer, powers of supervision and administrative control over the work. THEir Lordships, while considering Clause 22, observed that such agreement even by implication cannot be construed as an Arbitration Clause in the absence of any mention in it of any dispute and reference thereof. According to me, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the dispute and reference thereof are essential ingredients of any clause to construe the same as an arbitration clause.