GOVERNMENT OF A P Vs. M VENKAT REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of the common judgment of the learned II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.Nos. 518/89 and 4/90. The first petitioner is the State of Andhra Pradesh and the second petitioner is the concerned Engineer for whom the first respondent carried out contract works.

(2.) THE first respondent entered into agreement with the first petitioner, the State of Andhra .Pradesh, for carrying out certain works. Disputes arose between the first petitioner and the first respondent and claims were preferred by the first respondent before the named arbitrators, respondents "2 to 4, and award was passed in respect of some of the claims of the first respondent and rejecting the rest of the claims. Suit was filed by the first respondent to make the awards the rule of the Court and OP was filed by the first respondent to set aside the award. By a common judgment, the award was set aside by the learned Judge and the matter was remanded to the arbitrators under Sec. 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the Act', for short) fixing a period of four months from 19.2.1988. Alleging that the arbitrators refused or neglected to enter on reference, the first respondent filed OP Nos. 518/89 and 4/90 under Secs. 3, 5, 11 and 12 read with Secs. 8 and 9 of the Act, for removing respondents 2 to 4 and to appoint one of the four named arbitrators mentioned in the petition O.P.No. 4/90 filed by the Petitioners'for intimation of time. THE learned Judge held that the arbitrators refused or neglected to enter on reference and removed respondents 2 to 4 and appointed Sri Justice P. Ramachandra Raju, a retired Judge of this Court, as the sole arbitrator in both the matters, and dismissed OP.No. 4/90 which is questioned in these revision petitions.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the arbitrators totally neglected to enter on reference which amounted to refusal and that under the said circumstances, the lower court was justified in holding that the arbitrators refused or neglected to enter on reference. He further" submitted that the court below was justified in appointing a sole arbitrator when the court came to the conclusion that the arbitrators have refused or neglected to enter on reference.