CROMPTON GREAVES LTD Vs. HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is at the instance of the petitioner Crompton Greaves Limited and it is directed against order No. 23 dated Sept. 22, 1977 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Burdwan. By the said order, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application of the opposite party Hindustan Steel Limited under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

(2.) IT appears that on Dec. 23, 1965 the petitioner and the opposite party entered into a contract for the erection of the power distribution system and putting them into commission on the "turn-key" basis to be executed by the petitioner, the contractor. After the "turn-key" job was completed and the power distribution equipment was put into commission, the petitioner found some surplus cables lying in its custody which were not incorporated in the said "turn-key", job. The petitioner claimed that the said surplus cables belonged to it while the opposite party claimed title and ownership to the same. So a dispute arose between the parties as to the ownership of the surplus cables. The contract dated Dec. 23, 1965 contained an arbitration clause and the dispute between the parties over the ownership of the surplus cables was referred to the arbitration of two Arbitrators one nominated by the petitioner and the other by the opposite party. After the Arbitrators had entered on the reference, the petitioner filed a statement of facts and the opposite party filed a Counter state of facts. The Arbitrators raised as many as 8 issues of which issues 4 and 5 are as follows :

(3.) THE opposite party was not satisfied with the said order of the Arbitrators and filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act before the learned Subordinate Judge, praying for an order deciding the effect of the arbitration agreement dated 23-12-1965 read with the subsequent agreement dated 14-5-1973. It was contended in the said application that the order of the Arbitrators dated Oct. 1, 1975 was bad and invalid in so far as the same purported to direct that the arbitration would go on in respect of issues 4 and 5, and that the last portion of the said order was contradictory to the earlier portion. THE said application was opposed by the petitioner. It was contended by the petitioner that the application was not maintainable unless the award had been filed in Court. Further, it was contended that the decision of the Arbitrators that the Arbitration will proceed in respect of issues 4 and 5 was in accordance with the agreement dated May 14, 1973.