STATE OF J&K Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN GANDOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above noted seventeen appeal are filed under Section 39 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 Nos. 470 to 486 of 1987 on various ground 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 concessions cannot enure 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 Chef Engineer Leh has been abolished. Even if for the sake of argument 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 himself as 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 and in his presence the appeals were admitted for hearing.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent at the out set attached the maintainability of the appeals on the ground that they do not 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 and hence no appeal lay against such an order.