SHANTI SWARUP BANTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 5th June, 1973, passed by Thakur Chet Ram Judge of this Court on an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act by which the said application of the present appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the present appellant filed an application under section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act on the grounds that the appellant, while carrying on the business of a forest lessee at Yamunanagar, purchased lot No. 18/62 -64 of Sarain Range, Chopal Division, Sirmur Circle. H. P. for a sum of Rs. 40,500/ - and an agreement regarding this auction purchase was executed between the parties. It was further alleged that the forest covered by the above lot could not be worked out by the appellant as he was busy in working out certain other lots during 1962 -63 and that later on the forest covered by the above lot was converted into timber and was brought to launching depot at Khad -Nallah. It was further alleged by the appellant that the timber of the lot had been stacked at the launching depot and was to be floated in two Ghals, the first Ghal consisting of 10054 scants was floated down at the end of the years 1965 but the second Ghal consisting of 7844 scants was still lying stacked at Bhat -Nallah. It is next alleged that when the appellant started wet slide and floating work of timber in Bhat -Mallah, the forest authorities took some revengeful attitude which was against the river rules and when the matter was brought to the notice of the forest authorities vide letter of the appellant dated 16th August, 1965 to the effect that the department had illegally stopped the Ghal, the department paid no heed. The appellant further asserted that the market value of the floated timber was over Rs. 75,000/ -. The appellant further asserted that when the timber of the first Ghal reached the boom and then the appellant approached the forest authority to give him the facility of 20% free release of timber, as such a facility was being given generally, but instead of giving him the facility, the department appropriated Rs. 30,000/ - towards the timber of lot No. 20/64 -65 of Chopal Division and required the appellant to deposit Rs. 19,900/ -. The appellant asserted that the contract of lot No. 10/64 -65 was quite separate and it could not be tagged with the disputed lot and that due to this unjust and illegal attitude of the forest department the appellant has suffered financial loss and he could not float the second Ghal comprising of 7844 scants stacked at Bhat -Nallah. It is further alleged that the appellant was prevented from floating this lot as the department claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - in respect of their alleged dues with respect to some other contract. The appellant further alleged that he suffered a loss of not less than Rs. 70,000/ - due to this illegal act of the forest Department and the appellant was entitled to claim the alleged loss from the respondents and that the dispute existed between the parties which had to be settled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement through an Arbitrator. The appellant further alleged that instead of settling the claim of the appellant, the forest department claimed Rs. 14081 -72 paise from the appellant which demand of the respondent was altogether unjustified and the appellant did not concede this demand and so there is a subsisting dispute regarding this amount. On these allegations the appellant filed the above application on 3rd October, 1972 seeking the relief that the agreement be got filed in the court and that the disputes between the parties be referred to the Arbitrator named in the agreement or otherwise and if the parties cannot agree upon the Arbitrator, then an Arbitrator be appointed by the Court to settle the dispute.

(3.) Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents in their reply contested the application. It was, however, admitted that the work in the forests of lot No. 18/62 -61 was given to the appellant but the appellant could not complete this work in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It was further asserted that the appellant had not been making adequate arrangements for the floating of the Ghal and that he was being served with notices by the forest department and that due to the negligence in floating the Ghal by the appellant, hinderances were created in the smooth floating and operating of the Ghal of the other persons. It was further asserted that the appellant failed to launch the timber of the second Ghal due to his own mismanagement and financial difficulties. The respondents alleged that there were no disputes between the parties as long as the work of the petitioner in the lot was in progress but the latter raised untenable disputes in order to delay the payment of the government dues. It was further alleged that the demand by the respondents on account of the interest is genuine and the claim of the appellant is false and illusory and that there was no occasion to invoke the provisions of clause 29 of the agreement deed,