HOUSERANCHI Vs. BHARDWAJ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HAZARIBAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter 'the Act' only) against the order dated 26-7-1993 passed by Subordinate Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 30 of 1992 by which one Shri Satya R. Kar Roy of Doranda has been appointed as sole arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties.

(2.) THE appellant Central Coal Fields Limited had entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 1 Bhardwaj Construction Company for transportation of coal from West Bokaro Group of Mines to Giddi Washari pursuant to Tender document No. 91 of 1976-77. Clause 9 of the said agreement provides for arbitration in the following terms : -

(3.) IT has been submitted by Mr. Debi Prasad that under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, the Court gets jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator only in either of the three exigencies which have been contemplated under sub-section (1) thereof. According to him none of the aforesaid three prerequisites exist in the present case to clothe the Court with the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. According to the learned counsel, the only relevant clause which can have some bearing in the present case is clause (a) of Section 8 (1) of the Act, but that too cannot be of any avail to the respondent because under the arbitration clause referred to above, there is no contemplation for appointment of any arbitrator with the consent of the parties. According to him, on a plain reading of the arbitration clause, it is clear that arbitrator has to be appointed by the Managing Director of the Appellant Company and, therefore, the question of giving consent by the Appellant Company never arises. Mr. Debi Prasad has further submitted that the orders like the impugned one could not have been passed by the Court below even under Section 20 of the Act since it ought to have a preceded by another order directing the parties to file agreement, which has not been done in the present case In support of his submissions, Mr. Prasad has relied on various decisions, viz in the case of M/s. Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh & Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (AIR 1979 Delhi, 220), in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal, (AIR 1979 SC 1457), in the case of S. Ranjan v. State of Kerala and another, [(1992) 3 S C. C. 608] and in the case of The Union of India v. M/s, Dev and Company, (AIR 1978 Gauhati, 91).