BANARSI DASS MITTAL Vs. HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Vashisht states at the bar that the Housing Board, Haryana, has appointed Shri D.P. Gupta, S.E., P.W.D. (B. and E.), now on deputation with Mini Project, World Bank Circle, Chandigarh, as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. On the basis of the aforesaid he prays that the revision has become infructuous. Shri Bansal appearing for the revision petitioner urges that notice for appointing the Arbitrator was given by the petitioner to the respondent Board on 12-8-1985 but the Board did not appoint the Arbitrator within the specified time and section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) gives 15 days time to the Chief Administrator of the Housing Board to appoint the Arbitrator and since it was not done within the prescribed period, now it is for the Court to appoint the Arbitrator. In support of this he cites AIR 1980 Orissa 142.

(2.) On consideration of the matter, I am of the view that since the Board did not exercise its option to appoint the Arbitrator within the specified period of 15 days after the receipt of the notice, now they have foregone their right to appoint the Arbitrator and it is for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to appoint the Arbitrator under section 8 (2) of the Act.

(3.) In the Court below the stand of the Board was that the matter was premature. This stand was obviously without merit and that is why during the pendency of the revision they have agreed to appoint the Arbitrator.