HARYANA HOUSING BOARD Vs. BANARASI DASS MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh dated December 27, 1987 whereby on an application under the Arbitration Act filed on behalf of Contractor Banarsi Dass, the Arbitration Shri L.S. Virdi Chief Engineer (Retired) was appointed as Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for Haryana Housing Board petitioner submitted that according to the arbitration clause in the agreement, the arbitrator was to be nominated by the Chief Administrator Housing Board Haryana on the written request of the Contractor within six months from the payment of the final bill or from the date of the issue of registered notice etc. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the civil court was not competent to appoint the arbitrator and it was against the arbitration clause itself.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. The contractor did move the Chief Engineer for appointment of the arbitrator. When he failed to appoint the arbitrator, he moved the application to the court for appointment of the arbitrator. There also a panel of names was given by the contractor for appointment of the arbitrator, but the Housing Board failed to give name. Consequently the learned Sub Judge 1st Class appointed Shri T.S. Virdi, Chief Engineer (Retd.) as the Arbitrator. It has been observed by the learned Sub Judge that "this direction to the mind should not be issued because the Chief Administrator or Chairman had failed to appoint any arbitrator when he was called upon to do so. So he has forfeited his right to appoint any arbitrator." In these circumstances, there is no justification for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

(3.) Since at the time of motion hearing, further proceedings before the arbitrator were stayed, the parties are directed to appear before the arbitrator on August 23, 1989, for further proceedings in accordance with law. Order accordingly.