GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. B KOTESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of common order dated 21.1.1992 made in O.P. Nos. 357 and 250 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad.

(3.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in question are under : Petitioner No. 1 is the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department, Hyderabad, petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Engineer (Projects), Srisailam Project, Hyderabad and petitioner No. 3 is the Superintending Engineer, Srisailam Left Bank Canal. Circle No. 1, G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda district. Respondent No. 1, who is a Class-1 contractor, was entrusted with the earthwork excavation and forming embankment of Srisailam Left Bank Canal from K.M. 30/0 to 33/0 in terms of agreement dated 21.5.1985 and supplemental agreement dated 1.2.89, out of which O.P. No. 357/91 arose, and from K.M. 33/0 to 35/0 in terms of agreement dated 21.5.1984, out of which O.P. No. 215/91 arose. In terms of clause 3 of the agreements, if the value of the claim in dispute is more than Rs. 50,000.00, the competent civil court has to function as an arbitrator. In these cases, the value of works is about Rs. 48.92 lakhs and Rs. 46.12 lakhs respectively. THE stipulated period for completion of works was 9 months from the date of handing over the site. THE site was handed over to respondent No. 1 on 5.9.1984 and 4.9.1984. Respondent No. 1 raised some dispute on the ground that there was default on the part of petitioner No. 1 and accordingly preferred claims in his letters dated 11.2.1991 and 11.12.1990 for payment of compensation, However, the contract was terminated vide order dated 24.12.1990 of the Executive Engineer, S.L.B.C. THEreupon, in terms of agreements, respondent No. 1, at the first instance, furnished his claims to the 1 Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for settlement. THE learned 1 Additional Judge, by order dated 10.4.1991, returned the claim statements of respondent No. 1 with a direction to proceed as per law. THEreafter, respondent No. 1 issued a notice under Section 8(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') on 19.4.1991 to petitioner No. 3 for filling up the vacancy in place of the designated arbitrator suggesting the name of one Shri D. Srinivasulu, Chief Engineer (Retd.), Hyderabad as the sole arbitrator, and requested petitioner No. 3 to concur with the said appointment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice in respect of the two claims. As petitioner No. 3 refused to concur with the appointment of Sri Srinivasulu as the sole arbitrator, respondent No. 1 filed O.P. Nos. 251 and 357 of 1991 before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying to appoint sole arbitrator in respect of the two claims. Petitioners contested the above two OPs. by filing counter-affidavits inter alia, contending that the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the OPs filed under Section 8 of the Act. By common order dated 21.9.1992 the court below allowed both the O.Ps. by appointing one Sri K. Hanumantha Rao, Chief Engineer, I & CAD (Retd.), Hyderabad as the sole arbitrator in O.P. No. 250/91 and Sri K. Mallikarjuna Rao. Chief Engineer, N.H. Division (Retd.), Hyderabad in O.P. No. 357/91 and further directed the arbitrators to pass awards within four months from the date of entering the reference by them. It is this common order dated 21.9.1992 which is questioned in these revision petitions.