BEAS CONSTRUCTION BOARD Vs. SH MOHINDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1663 and 1664 of 1990, as the question involved is common in all these cases

(2.) THE coutractor Mohinder Kumar Jain, respondent, entered into an agreement for the construction of certain quarters. A written agreement was duly executed between the parties. There was an arbitration clause in the said agreement. According to said clause 25-A, the dispute will be referred for arbitration to the arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Engineer/electrical Beas Project Chandigarh on written request either from the contractor or from the Executive Engineer within 180 days or in six months from the date of payment of final bill to the contractor. The contractor vide notice dated February 7, 1988, through registered post requested the Chief Engineer, under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called the Act), to appoint an arbitrator within 15 days as per the arbitration agreement, but it was of no avail. Consequently, he filed the application under Section 8 of the Act in the Court for appointment of an arbitrator. The said application was resisted on behalf of the Board inter (sic) on the plea that the application was not maintainable in that form and that the arbitrator had already been appointed by the Chief Engineer, Electricity, Beas Project, Chandigarh, and, therefore, the petition had become infrunctuous. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that since no arbitrator was appointed after notice having been given by the contractor the subsequent appointment of the arbitrator was wrong and illegal and it was now for the Court to appoint the arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act. He, further directed the parties to give names of four parsons each in order to appoint an arbitrator. The contractor gave a list, of four persons, but the Board did not file any list and consequently, idea order dated April 16, 1990, the Court appointed Shri H C. Khunger, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) as an arbitrator The said orders have been challenged on behalf of the

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that there is merit in this revision petition.