INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRY LTD Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7 -5 -1994 passed in Civil Misc. case No. 6/92 by the learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur by which application of the non -petitioner under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been allowed and dispute between the parties has been referred for arbitration.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the applicant/non -petitioner was given a contract and the parties entered into an agreement dated 15 -2 -1988, which contained an arbitration clause. After completion of the work, the bills had been cleared and the plaintiff/ non -petitioner submitted No Claim Certificate on 7 -10 -1990. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff/non -petitioner filed a claim vide letter dated 29 -4 -1991 for certain items, the same were considered by the defendant -petitioner and to resolve the controversy, paid a sum of Rs. 10,438.40p. in total settlement of all the claims of the contractor/plaintiff. However, at that point of time, the parties entered into another agreement dated 21 -5 -1991 discharging the arbitration clause contained in their earlier agreement dated 15 -2 -1988 and both the parties signed the said deed. Subsequently, plaintiff/non -petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Act before the civil court praying that the dispute between the parties remained unresolved and thus it be referred to the arbitrator as per the terms of agreement dated 15 -2 -1988, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 7 -5 -1994. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) ON the contrary, Mr. A.L. Chopra, learned counsel for the non -petitioner has submitted that the court, vide impugned order, has made a reference to the arbitrator giving liberty to the defendant petitioner to raise this issue before the Arbitrator and as the Arbitrator would be competent to decide the plea as to whether the agreement dated 15 -2 -1988 stood discharged vide agreement dated 21 -5 -1991, no interference is called for with the impugned order in a limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court.