RAM LAL JAGAN NATH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been placed before us in pursuance of my order, dated 19-31965.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that Messrs. Ram lal Jagan Nath (petitioner-firm in this Court) had entered into various contracts with the State of Punjab for the construction of houses and bridges and also for putting earth along the Second Bhakra Main Line. Disputes having arisen between the parties regarding payment in several cases, the contractors approached the settlement Committee, Patiala, for arbitration. In the case before us, however, the dispute relates to work-orders No. 1-6/259, dated 21-11-1958, No. 98-100/37, dated 21-1-1954, No. 1-2/54, dated 21-1-1954 and No. 88-95/81, dated 12-121954. In this case, according to the department's allegations, over-payments were made to the contractors and Shri B. S. Bansal, Superintending Engineer, was approached by the State for arbitration. The petitioner-firm of contractors challenged this reference on various grounds including the plea that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and it is indeed this question which was raised before me sitting in Single Bench and which is before us for determination. The arbitration clause is printed at the back of the Work Order Form. It is desirable to reproduce all the conditions printed at the back of the Work Order Form because the learned counsel for the petitioner has also tried to build an argument on the location of the condition on which reliance is placed in support of the reference to the arbitration:-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the attention of the Division Bench in Jagan Nath Vig's case, F. A. O. No. 47 of 1957, dated 24-4 1959 (Punj), was neither drawn to the various provisions of the Indian Arbitration act nor to a number of other decided cases relevant to the point, including the decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd. , AIR 1947 Lah 215. As a matter of fact, he has placed strong reliance on the reasoning and ratio of the judgment of Abdul Rashid, Actg. C. J. and Abdur rahman, J. in the case of Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd. , AIR 1947 Lah 215. I consider it appropriate at this stage to reproduce somewhat exhaustively the relevant portion of that judgment. Abdur Rahman, J. speaking for the Bench, observed as follows:--