NANU RAM GOYAL Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the contract agreement, there was an arbitration clause between the parties. A dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the Superintending Engineer, Karnal, who was the Arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement. The contractor was not satisfied with the working of the Arbitrator and he filed an application on 24-9-1988, under Ss.8, 11, 12 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for removal of the Arbitrator and for appointment of another Arbitrator by the Civil Court. This application was filed before a Sub Judge, Chandigarh. While that application was pending consideration and the time limit before the Arbitrator to arbitrate was going to expire, the other party, namely, the State of Haryana, filed an application under S.28 of the Act before the Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat, for extension of time. The application was opposed by the contractor on the plea that since the proceedings were pending before the Sub Judge, Chandigarh, Sonepat Court will have no jurisdiction. The Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat allowed the application after declining the prayer of the contractor by order dt. 15-11-1988 and extended the time for a period of four months from the date of order. The contractor has come to this Court in revision.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the provisions of S.31(4) of the Act, it is clear that the Sonepat Court would have no jurisdiction. Sub-sec. (4) of S.31 of the Act is in the following terms:-