PUNJAB PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE WORKS (P) LTD., CHANDIGARH Vs. MESSERS PUNJAB CON-CAST STEEL LIMITED LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Punjab Pre -stressed concrete works i.e. the contractor entered into an agreement under which the Appellant -Company was employed to execute certain works for M/s. Punjab Comcast Steels Ltd. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the contractors executed certain works. Lateron, certain dispute has arisen between the parties and in view of Clause 25(1) of the agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator as provided therein. Since the said Arbitrator could not decide the dispute between the parties, another reference was made to the President, for the time being, of the Institute of Engineers (India) as provided in Clause 5(1) and consequently, the matter was again referred to the Arbitrator. The Respondent M/s. Punjab Concast Steels Ltd., challenged the said reference under Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act for declaration that there exists no arbitration agreement and there is no valid reference to Respondent No. 2, i.e. Shri Jiwan Dutt, Retired Engineer. It was alleged therein that since the work had been completed in October, 1973, no reference could be made to the Arbitrator after completion of work and, therefore, the appointment of the Arbitrator was unwarranted. This applications was contested on behalf of the Appellant -Company. Learned Senior Sub Judge took the view that in the present case the work had already been completed and so the arbitration clause ceased to be operative between the parties and resort to it could not be made by the contractors. As a result of these finding, it was declared that there is no subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties and thus, there is no valid reference of the arbitration. Dissatisfied with the same, the contractors have filed this appeal in this Court.

(2.) The main controversy between the parties centers round the interpretation of Clause 25(1) of the agreement which is reproduced as under:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the view taken by the learned Senior Sub Judge that the reference could only be made during the pendency of the work and not after its completion, was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. According to the learned Counsel, if dispute of any kind arises during the execution of the contract, it shall be referred to and settled by the Arbitrator. The Clause 25(1) does not mean that reference could only be made during the pendency of the contract and not after its completion in support of his contention, he referred to Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v/s. Moreshwar Parashram : A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 236, and M/s. Ram Lal Jagan Nath v/s. Punjab State through Collector, Hissar : A.I.R. 1966 P&H 436 (F.B.) (Full Bench).