KONDA ANTHIAH Vs. MADAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that fails for determination in this C. R. P. is with regard to the construction to be placed on the powers of General Power of Attorney stated to have been appointed by Konda Aruna (the second respondent) in O. P. No. 19 of 1962. The General Power of Attorney, Fateh Mohammad, is the first respondent and the petitioner in the original petition. Madan Lal is the person in whose favour the agreement has been drawn. Madan Rao filed the petition under Ss. 9 (1) and 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that the dispute between the parties regarding failure to supply fire wood as agreed to may be referred to a named arbitrator for settlement. His case was that he had entered into an agreement with first respondent who holds the power of attorney on behalf of the second respondent whereunder the agent undertook to supply fire-wood for Rs. 6, 400 within a specified time. The contention is that the respondent failed to supply the fire wood and refund the amount in spite of the notice on behalf of the petitioner. A condition was imposed of the terms of the agreement that in case of dispute, the matter would be referred to arbitration and it was this condition that was sought to be enforced by the petitioner. The first respondent petitioner did not contest the petition. The second respondent, however, urged that the petition was not maintainable as the first respondent, the power of attorney holder was not competent to refer the matter to arbitration. The question, therefore, before the Court was whether the reference to an arbitration was within the competency of the General Power of Attorney. The lower Court on a consideration of the terms of the General Power of Attorney held that the first respondent was competent to entertain an agreement of the nature refereed to above. In other words, it held that the reference to arbitrator was within the powers delegated to the General Power of Attorney. the revision petition is filed by the second respondent in the lower Court against the decision of the lower Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner (second respondent) contends that the original document contains the word `compromise and reference to arbitration is not specifically mentioned thereunder. It may be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the General Power of Attorney.

(3.) It is this part of the condition which was sought to be enforced by the petitioner herein.