GOVERNMENT OF BANG­LADESH Vs. SAMIR & CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against an order of a Division Bench, of the Dacca High Court refusing to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, with an order made by the First Court of Subordinate Judge, Dacca appointing an Arbitrator under section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. This appeal was filed by Pakistan and two of its officers and is now being prosecuted by Bangladesh.

(2.) Respondent Firm is a Government Contractor who was given earth filling work for development of the site for construction of the Telephone Factory at Tongi on the basis of an agreement dated the 23rd of May, 1966, executed by Samir Mia, Managing Partner of the Respondent Firm, on the one hand, and the Superintending Engineer, Regional Civil, Pak P.W.D. on behalf of the President of Pakistan on the other. According to Clause 25 of the said Agreement, all questions and disputes concerning the work under the said agreement were to be referred to the Superintending Engineer to be nominated by the Chief Engineer, Pak. P.W.D. for arbitration according to law.

(3.) A dispute having arisen on completion of the aforesaid work between the parties as to the amount of money to be paid to the Respondent Firm, Mr. M. I. Rajput, Superintending Engineer, Pak. P.W.D. was appointed sole Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer, Pak. P.W.D., to adjudicate the said dispute. The Arbitrator entered into reference on the 2nd April, 1968 but he having failed to give the award within the prescribed period of 4 (four) months from 2-4-68, the First Court of Subordinate Judge, Dacca was moved by him for extension of time in what was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1968. Extension was granted from time to time and the matter having been heard by the Arbitrator in the meantime, the 25th of April, 1969 was fixed for submission of the award, but Mr. Rajput, the Arbitrator by his letter dated the 7th April, 1969 withdrew himself from the office of the Arbitrator. Respondent Firm thereafter prepared an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act in which three names were suggested for appointment of arbitrator and served a copy of the said application upon the appellants asking them to treat the said copy of the application as a written notice to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator as contemplated in section 8 of the Arbitration Act. This notice was dated the 23rd of April, 1969 and is admitted to have been actually served upon the appellants on the 25th of April, 1969.