GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. N V CHOUDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of five Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of suits filed under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is the respondent in all these matters. Defendants are the appellants in all the appeals and petitioners in the revision petitions. They are . challenging the Judgments and decrees of the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad appointing sole Arbitrator in each of the cases.

(3.) SUITS were instituted under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as "The Act", by the plaintiff-contractor alleging that he is a Class-I Contractor and pursuant to the different works mentioned in the respective plaints, he submitted his tenders for the respective works which were ultimately accepted and agreements were concluded between the plaintiff- contractor on the one hand and third defendant on the other. The period of contract was fixed as twelve months from the date of handing over of the site. The terms of the contract are subject to the conditions set forth in the Preliminary Specifications to the Andhra Pradesh Detailed Standard Specifications and such other conditions as are contained in the specifications forming part of the contract. Clause 73 of the Preliminary Specifications provides that in case of dispute or difference between the parties to the contract during the progress or after the completion of the work; the same shall be referred to Arbitration. Basing on the said clause, Artice 3 of the Articles of Agreement was included in the terms of the agreement. According to the relevant term, the Arbitration for fulfilling the duties setforth in the Arbitration Clause of Standard Preliminary Specifications shall consist of members as laid down in G.O. Ms.No. 876, Tr. R and B, dated 31-7-1975 and Government Memo. No. l323-Cl / 75007, dt.27-11-1975. According to the said clause, for claims of Rs. 1.00 lakh and above, the panel shall consist of (1) Chief Engineer (R and B); (2) Deputy Secretary, Finance; and (3) Director of Accounts, Pochampad Project. Plaintiff-contractor claiming that the defendants never co-operated with him for completing the work and did not pay him the amounts due to him for the work completed, raised several disputes and issued a notice in that regard (Ex.A-4 dt.8-9-1985) and as there was no reply, he was constrained to file the suit. It is alleged in the plaint that the Arbitration clause prescribing the panel of Arbitrators is so vague mat the plaintiff cannot make his submissions to a particular panel of arbitrators. According to the plaintiff, there are more man one designated Officers in the category of Chief Engineer (R and B), and Deputy Secretary, Finance and mat there was no provision anywhere in the arbitration clause empowering a particular officer or person to draw the panel from the members mentioned in the said clause. Therefore, the plaintiff-contractor sought relief that an Arbitrator may be appointed in each of the cases to decide the disputes between the parties with respect to each of the agreements.