INDIAN RARE EATHS LTD. Vs. UNIQUE BUILDERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 5 -1 -85 passed in Misc. Case No. 117 of 1983 (Arbitration) by the Subordinate Judge (1), Cuttack. The aforesaid Miscellaneous case was filed for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties. The learned Court below after hearing the parties ordered for appointment of an Arbitrator overruling the objection raised by the present petitioner on the ground that only the Courts of Maharashtra shall have the jurisdiction to determine the matter in issue and the jurisdiction of all other Courts having been ousted by an agreement between the parties.

(2.) THE present opp. party was entrusted with the work "Structural Steel and Cladding Work in Bulk Ware Houses" as per the agreement between the petitioner and the opp. party. The work order issued by the present petitioners was received by the contractor (present opp. party) in their office at Cuttack. During the execution of the work certain disputes arose between the parties which was brought to the notice of the present petitioners, by letters dated, 7 -6 -82 and 11 -8 -82. There being no response to the said letters the present opp. party requested for appointment of an arbitrator by letters dated, 20 -11 -82 and 19 -2 -83, but the same also produced no effect. Hence, this application was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack under sections 5, 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the said Court (Subordinate Judge, Cuttack) had jurisdiction to entertain the present case and the stipulation in the agreement to the effect that the Court of Maharashtra alone shall have the jurisdiction in the matter is oppressive, unfair and inequitable. It was also held in the impugned order that in the facts and circumstances of this case, an application for appointment of an arbitrator was competent as the disputes were brought to the notice of the Consulting Engineering who took no action as was required of him. On these findings, the learned Court below ordered than an arbitrator be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties and directed the parties for submitting penal of names tram out of which one was to be selected and appointed as the arbitrator. In this revision the aforesaid order of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack has been challenged on the very same grounds which were taken against the application in the Court below.