GURCHARAN LAL SAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment delivered on 22.2.1994 by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Honble Khan J) in Arbitration application No: 203/1991 whereby the prayer of the appellant for reference of disputes to arbitration was disallowed and the appellants petition filed under section 20 of the arbitration Act was rejected. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the appellant, who is a contractor was allotted the contract for the construction of Stock Assistants Training School at Beli Charana. The appellant agitated certain claims before the authorities concerned through the medium of some representation made by him, but because the authorities did not award the claim made by the appellant, he felt aggrieved and filed the aforesaid petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of disputes to be settled through and adjudicated upon by the arbitration. The dispute projected by the appellant in his petition before the learned Single Judge was very simple. According to the appellant, he had quoted the rate of Rs 640/ - per Kg. for item 9 in the contract which was for welding of steel work. The appellants grievance was that despite his having quoted the aforesaid rate of Rs 640/ - per Kg. of welding, the respondents paid to him at the rate of Rs 6.12 per Kg thus depriving him of the amounts for which the parties had agreed. The respondents case in the objections filed to the petition under section 20 was that it was because of a typographical error that the rate of welding of per Kg of steel came to be wrongly mentioned at Rs 640/ - and that actually a corrigendum was issued on 3.1.1991 specifically indicating that the rate is Rs 6.12 per Kg and not as wrongly had come to be mentioned in the tender documents. The respondents further case is that the total amount of the contract was Rs. four lacs and the appellant was trying to claim an amount of Rs forty four lacs for only one small item of the whole contract.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act by holding that no dispute as contemplated in and covered by the arbitration agreement was found existing which was referable to arbitration.

(3.) MR . Kohli learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge erred in deciding about the merits of the controversy between the parties and that the court while dealing with a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is supposed to confine itself to only the existence and applicability of an arbitration agreement and nothing else and once it is found that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, if a dispute is alleged to have occurred, the court has no option but to allow the petition and refer the dispute for adjudication by the arbitrator.