CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION Vs. AJAY TRANSPORT COMPANY AND ANIL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this revision against the order dated 18.06.2005 passed by learned Sub Judge I, Hazaribagh in Money Suit No. 3 of 2004, whereby the petitioners application for reference of dispute for arbitration filed under, purported provision of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been rejected. According to the petitioner, there was an agreement between the parties with regard to transportation of sand from Damodar river to Sonda Colliery for the period 12.02.1994 to 11.02.1995. The agreement came to an end on 11.02.1995, but the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited; Barkakana requested the plaintiff -opposite party to continue the transportation of sand till new tender is finalised. It has been stated that on the said request and on the agreed term that the rate will be revised with effect from 12.02.1995, the petitioner undertook the transportation work from 12.02.1995 onward till the new tender was finalized by the headquarters. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there was an agreement to revise the rate, he was given payment on the old rate also for the period from 12.02.1995 to 23.05.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the money suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the balance amount in the Court below being Money Suit No. 2 of 2004. The defendant - petitioner, appeared and instead of contesting the said suit, filed an application under Section 8 of the said Act praying for reference of the dispute for arbitration on the ground that the disputes have arisen out of the payment made to the contractor as per the agreement dated 12.03.1994 for the extended period. A rejoinder was filed to the application by the plaintiff -opposite party stating therein that the subject matter of the dispute does not come within the ambit of the agreement dated 12.03.1994, and the claim was made for the period not covered by the said agreement. The Court below, after hearing the parties, has passed the impugned order whereby the petition under Section 8 of the said Act has been rejected.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below failed to consider that the claim in questin in the suit was for the extended period of the agreement dated 12.03.1994 and there was no separate independent agreement for the said period and has erroneously rejected the application holding that the period of claim is not covered by the agreement dated 12.03.1994 and Clause 95 of the agreement, which provides for arbitration, has no application. Learned Counsel submitted that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and legally and the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 2005 (2) JCR 9. 4. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record as also on careful perusal of the order of learned Court below, I find substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the opposite party. It appears from the record that the agreement in question was for the period from 12.02.1994 to 11.02.1995. There was no new tender/agreement, which was operative with effect from 24.05.1995 to 23.05.1997 and in between the said period, there was no concluded agreement between the parties. The claim made in the Money Suit No. 3 of 2004 is also not covered by the agreement. The same does not come within the Clause 95 of the said agreement. Learned Court below has thoroughly considered the materials on record and has passed a reasoned order supported by the fact and relevant provision of law. It has been held by this Court in M/s. Satguru Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that any dispute arising beyond the terms of the agreement cannot be referred for arbitration and an application under Section 8 of the said Act cannot be allowed in such case. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order of the Court below warranting an interference by this Court. There being no merit in this revision, it is, accordingly, dismissed.