STATE OF J&K Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN GANDOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above noted seventeen appeals are filed under section 36 of the J&K Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 a. D) (hereinafter called the Act) against the order passed by learned Single Judge of this court on November 18, 1987 in the seventeen petitions filed by the respondent under section 20 of the Act. The appellants herein have assailed the orders of references made in Arbitration Application No;. 470 to 86 of 1987 on various grounds including therein, that the references made under the impugned orders are based on no agreement or an arbitration clause, which is a sine -qua -non for orders on applications under section 20 of the Act. It is also alleged that the concession made by the learned Government Advocate on the very day, when he accepted a notice was invalid and without any specific instructions from the appellants. Moreover, the said concession cannot ensure for giving jurisdiction to the Court for directions to produce the agreement containing the arbitration clause for referring the dispute to arbitration. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge without any application under section 8 of the Act change even the alleged named Arbitrator simply on the allegation that the post of Chief Engineer, Leh has been abolished. Even if for the sake of arguments there was any concession, the appointment of independent Arbitrator could not be done unless the circumstances shown in section 20 of the Act exist. In the orders impugned, there is no such satisfaction recorded nor the learned Single Judge satisfied him. If as to the existence of any dispute based on any arbitration clause.

(2.) AT the time when the appeals were admitted, Mr. Permod Kohli, appeared on the Caveat & in his presence the appeals were admitted for hearing.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent at the out set attacked the maintainability of the appeals on the ground that they do no fall within the ambit of any of the clause of section 39 of the Act and secondly, because the orders impugned were passed with the consent of the parties & hence no appeal lay against such an order.