UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARPAL DASS MADHYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an order by which the court below has appointed arbitrators under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act').

(2.) IT appears that there was a eon-tract between the petitioner and the opposite party by which the latter undertook to make some constructions. As a result, an agreement was entered into on the 22nd of March, 1972. Some further work was, however, found necessary to be done and the opposite party was asked to do that work as well. For such extra work he submitted a bill at the rate prescribed by the original agreement. After negotiation he reduced it by 2% and claimed a sum of Rupees 76,908.12, out of which the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 26,596.49 paise, with the result that there remained due an amount of Rs. 50,311,63 paise. The petitioner refuted the claim on the ground that the opposite party was entitled to receive payment for the extra work at the rate prescribed in the subsequent agreement and not at the one prescribed by the original. IT is said that according to the agreement a dispute or differences regarding the claim of the contractor is to be referred to arbitration. In view of the dispute aforesaid, therefore, the opposite party sent a notice dated the 12th of Oct. 1973 to the General Manager of the Railway, asking for nomination of arbitrators for deciding the dispute. There was no reply to this notice. Therefore, again on the 26th of April, 1974, the petitioner sent another notice through a lawyer. The petitioner, however, rejected the claim for arbitration on the ground that there was no dispute at all. Hence the opposite party filed an application under Section 8 of the Act.

(3.) THE points thus which arise for consideration are (1) whether a dispute between the parties exists, (2) whether THE application under Section 8 of the Act is barred by limitation, (3) whether the aforesaid petition is maintainable in the absence of Union of India being a party, and (4) whether the order of the court below appointing two arbitrators is correct.