STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GOKUL CHANDRA KANUNGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 2 -9 -1985 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, is assailed in this Civil Revision. The order reads as follows : 'Counsel for both parties file haziras Direct the respondent to appoint a Special Tribunal by 4 -10 -1985 to arbitrate upon the dispute.' 'Both parties do not dispute that the order is purported to be one under Section 41A of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'.

(2.) OPPOSITE party was entrusted with the construction work of the High Level Bridge over the River Rushikulya on National Highway No. 5 near Ganjam. The parties entered into an agreement to that effect on 25 -5 -1970. Since 1972 disputes of one nature or the other arose between the parties which were resolved by an Arbitrator appointed by the Court. Those are not subject matters of this revision. On 27 -11 -1981 a notice was issued by the opposite party demanding the amount due with interest at 19.5% per annum which was disputed by petitioner No. 2 in his reply dated 9. 12 1981. In view of the aforesaid reply, an application under Section 20 of the Act was filed by the opposite party in the Court annexing to the petition, the letter containing his claim before petitioner No. 2. This was registered as O. S. No. 318 of 1981 -1. By order dated 7 -5 -1982, an Arbitrator was appointed by the Court Opposite party challenged the order of issuing reference with regard to some points of reference to the Arbitrator in this Court in Civil Revision No. 514 of 1982. This Court dismissed the Civil Revision by the decision dated 9.9.1982.

(3.) BEFORE the records were transmitted by the trial Court to the Arbitration Tribunal, an application under Section 5 of the Act was filed by the opposite party on 30.9.1983 for revoking the authority as one of the three members constituting the Tribunal was alleged to be hostile to the opposite party and for directing the Arbitrator appointed by the Court for proceeding who the reference which was registered as M. J. C. No. 328 of 1983. During pendency of the application, petitioners did not press the Civil Revision No. 125 of 1983 which was accordingly dismissed. The trial Court by order dated 3.11.1983 dismissed M. J. C. No. 328 of 1983 on the finding that the application for revoking the authority of the Arbitration Tribunal was premature. Opp. party assailed the order in C. R. No. 797 of 1983 and C. R. No. 798 of 1983. During pendency of these two Civil Revisions, by order dated 20.12.1983, the trial Court transferred the reference to the Arbitration Tribunal in view of Section 41 -A (7) of the Act.