N.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The first case amongst four cases referred to above is the appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 32 of 2004 whereby the application of the appellant, U.P. Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P.P.C.L.') under Section 30/33 or the Act has been rejected and the interim award dated 24.2.2004 made by the Arbitrator Sri S.K. Rai has been made a Rule of the Court. The cross-objection has been preferred against a finding of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly in the same judgment. Since the impugned order dated 28.8.2004 is the composite order on the application under Section 30/33 of the Act moved by the appellant and the application under Section 17 of the Act moved by the respondent, M/s. Universal Insulators and Ceramics Limited, Rae Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the 'M/s. UICL') for passing a decree in accordance with an interim award, the U.P.P.C.L. has filed a separate revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the proceedings and order passed under Section 17 of the Act. Writ Petition No. 3177 (M/B) of 2004 has been filed by the M/s. Universal Insulators and Ceramics Limited, Rae Bareilly before filing of the F.A.F.O. by the U.P.P.C.L. for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of Rs. 979.8527 lacs plus interest accrued thereon as directed by the Five Members Committee of the appellant and directed by the Government order dated 9.12.2002 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Facts of the case:
(2.) The appellant, U.P.P.C.L. placed two firm orders on the respondent No. 1 in appeal on 23.4.1980 for supply of insulators and the agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose between the parties and it was referred to the arbitration of one Sri R.D. Maheshwari, a retired Chief Engineer of the then U.P. State Electricity Board, the predecessor of the present appellant, U.P.P.C.L. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition on 20.12.1991 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,482.66 lacs. The claim was contested by the then U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P.S.E.B.'). Sri R.D. Maheshwari, the sole Arbitrator passed an order on 26.3.1992 directing that the claims under two heads would be considered by him and the other claims will not be considered. This order dated 26.3.1992, passed by Sri R.D. Maheshwari, the sole Arbitrator was challenged by the UICL before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly. It was also prayed by the UICL before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly that Sri R.D. Maheshwari be removed as Arbitrator.
(3.) On 18.3.1996, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly allowed the petition of the respondent No. 1. Sri R.D. Maheshwari was removed as the Arbitrator on the ground of misconduct. By the same order, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly appointed Sri S.K. Rai, a retired District Judge and former Joint Secretary Law, Government of India as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly also determined the scope of arbitration. The U.P.S.E.B. filed a Civil Revision No. 44 of 1996 before this Court challenging the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rae Bareilly dated 18.3.1986. Subsequently, the U.P. Power Corporation Limited was substituted in the place of the U.P. State Electricity Board. This civil revision remained pending till 8.7.2003. During the pendency of the Civil Revision No. 44 of 1996, the respondent No. 1 approached the appellant for an out of court settlement. Admittedly, a Five Members' Committee was constituted by the appellant itself to examine the entire matter and to submit the report/recommendation to resolve the dispute vide its order dated 21.9.2000. This committee consisted of two technical experts viz., the Director (Distribution), Chief General Manager (Materials Management), two experts from Finance and Audit Department viz. the Director (Finance), the then Chief General Manager (Accounts and Audit) and the Special Secretary (Energy) nominated by the Government. The Committee examined seven claims of the respondent No. 1 and admitted and computed the liability of the appellant, U.P.P.C.L. on Claim Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 but refused to admit the Claim Nos. 3, 6 and 7. The Committee computed the different amount on the aforesaid four claims, the total of which comes to Rs. 979.8527 lacs alongwith interest thereon. The matter was referred to the State Government and the State Government after seeking the opinion of the Advocate General, issued an order on 9.12.2002 requiring the appellant to pay the respondent No. 1 the amount as admitted and computed by the Five Members' Committee itself within a period of 15 days.;