(1.) THE present M.A. (F) (T) 78 of 1994 has been filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the decision given by the learned Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Guwahati on an application moved by the respondents/applicants under Section 8(2) and Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. As the questions involved in the present case are purely questions of law, the counsel for the parties have agreed that the appeal itself may be heard as Mr. Sarma has produced before us the original record on which the appellant is placing reliance. It is in this circumstance that the present appeal has been heard and disposed of finally after hearing the arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusing the original records produced by the appellant.
(2.) FOR the purposes of adjudicating the present appeal, the brief facts are that the plaintiff-respondents admittedly were awarded a contract in pursuance of the tender which were invited by the appellants for making certain constructions of the appellant for an approximate value of Rs. 6,39,120/-. A written contract was executed between the parties and admittedly there is an Arbitration Clause for referring the dispute for arbitration arising out of the contract between the parties. It has also not been disputed by the appellant that certain works have been executed by the applicant-respondents. However, on 18-6-89, the defendant-appellants terminated the contract. The applicant-respondent firm therefore, laid a claim for getting payment for 50% of the works already completed and also for compensation for causing heavy financial loss to the applicant-respondent. The appellant did not find that the case should be referred to the arbitration and therefore, the applicant-respondent filed application under Section 8(2) and Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Under the impugned judgment, the Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Gauhati has allowed the aforesaid application moved by the applicants-respondents.