SUPER THERMAL POWER PROJECT Vs. GOURLSETHL SATYAVATHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the first defendant in O.S.No. 85 of 1987 which is pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli. The plaintiff-1st respondent herein had instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration that the proceedings dated 4-6-1984 issued by the third defendant appointing the second defendant as sole arbitrator is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and also for refund of earnest money deposit and security deposit

(2.) The averments made in the suit can briefly be narrated as follows: It was averred by the first respondent herein that the first defendant-Corporation issued a notice dated 1-6-1982 inviting the tenders for the work of transportation of cement from M/s. Kesoram Cement Factory, Basanthnagar to the stores of the first defendant-Corporation at Ramagundam by road and for unloading and stocking the cement gunny bags in the store of first defendant-Corporation.

(3.) It is further stated by the plaintiff-first respondent herein that in response to the aforesaid tender notice, the plaintiff-1st respondent herein submitted tenders. The first defendant-Corporation i .e., the appellant herein, addressed a letter dated 1-10-1982 to the plaintiff-lst respondent herein accepting her offer accompanied by another letter dated 1-10-1982 stating that she will adhere to all the conditions and regulations prescribed in the tender. The first defendant-corporation accepted the tender submitted by the plaintiff and issued a letter of award dated 8-11-1982 to the plaintiff informing her that the corporation had decided to accept her tender and awarded the work to her on the terms and conditions contained therein. The plaintiff accepted the said letter of award issued by the first defendant-corporation and thus the contract was concluded and execution of the formal agreement was not done. Thereafter some disputes arose and therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of earnest money and security deposit. Meanwhile the third respondent herein appointed second respondent herein as sole Arbitrator by the impugned order and therefore the suit in question came to be filed.