B S JAIRETH Vs. S P SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been made by B. S. Jaireth under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of an Arbitrator. There was a Memorandum of understanding as between the petitioner and the respondent dated 12/11/1988 which contained a clause as follows :

(2.) THEREAFTER disputes and differences had arisen between the parties and the petitioner by letter dated 22/09/1990 appointed an Arbitrator. The respondent, S. P. Sinha, however, did not send his concurrence to the said appointment. THEREAFTER, the said Arbitrator proceeded with the reference (hereinafter referred to as 'the previous reference') and made an Award. The said Award was set aside by an unreported judgment and order passed by Justice Ruma Pal dated 23/05/1992, made in matter No. 3432 of 1991 (S. P. Sinha v. B. S. Jaireth). This is to be noted that the said previous reference had arisen in respect of the same disputes between the same parties and was made under the same arbitration agreement as in the instant case before me.

(3.) THE Division Bench, in the aforesaid case also relied on Halsbury's laws of England, because according to the Division Bench, the provisions of the English Act are in all essential respect the same is in India. In the Hailsham Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England in Vol. I, the following passage occurs at page 644-45 :