RAJ KEWAL Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in Misc CA 1 (T) 88 passed on 20.2.88 allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner passed in (Arb) Misc Case No. 191 (T) 87.

(2.) Facts: The petitioner filed an application under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for short the 'Act' for appointment of an arbitrator in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The case of the petitioner is that he carries on business of architect and planner under the name and style of M/S Raj Rewan & Kuldip Singh. An agreement was executed between the firm and the North Eastern Hill University (which I shall refer to as the 'NEHU') on 16.3.78 for preparing the master plans of the university complex, the detailed design of the staff. Hostel Complex, Academic Complex and Sport Complex as specified in the agreement. The contract was to be executed within a period of three (3) years. However the contract was renewed on 2 Sept. 1985. The petitioner rendered his professional services as an architect for preparing the lay out plans, the detailed plans for buildings structures and other professional services. The NEHU not only denied the payment of Rs. 34,70,010.00 to the petitioner but have threatened to rescind the agreement unilaterally and have proceeded to appoint another architect. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 21. 5. 86 rescinding the contract without any valid reason. In the event of such attempted and illegal, mala fide and unilateral rescission of the contract before the settlement of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim a sum of Rs, 12,50,00,000.00 towards the damages and thereby the petitioner shall be entitled to a total claim for Rs. 15,01,13,000.00. The petitioner issued various notices for appointment of an arbitrator by the Vice Chancellor, as provided under clause 33 of the agreement. As the Vice Chancellor of the NEHU has failed to appoint an arbitrator, the petitioner filed the application for the appointment of the arbitrator.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable as the order passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner was not an appealable one.