BANALATA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications filed under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), have been filed by the very same petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator to decide the disputes arising in respect of two separate contracts. Since the main question to be decided in the two applications is the same, both the matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The main question which arises for determination is as to whether there is an arbitration clause in the two contracts. The essential terms of both the contracts are same. The petitioner relies upon Clause-11 of the F2 Agreement and contends that such Clause contains provision relating to arbitration. Clause-11 of the Conditions of Contract is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contends that the aforementioned Clause in F2 Form which is a standardised form is applicable to all the contracts between the State and the Contractor in the State of Orissa. Previously, such F2 contract had contained an arbitration clause in Clause-23. However, it is not disputed that such Clause-23 has been deleted under the specific order of the State Government dated 24th. Dec., 1981. In the contract between the parties also Clause-23 had been deleted and as such, it cannot be said that there is an arbitration clause.