B. N. Misra, J. - (1.) THE Senior Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India, Lucknow and the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, defendants nos. 1 and 2 respectively, I have filed this appeal against an order dated 16-12-1978 passed by the Civil Judge, Nainital, Camp at Haldwani, whereby he allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, No. X of 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and directed the defendant no. 2 to appoint a sole Arbitrator with in a period of two months failing which the Court was to appoint a sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.
(2.) THE plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant no. 1 for' transporting and stacking of goods as per terms contained in the contract which was initially effective for a period of two years from 1-6-71 and subsequently extended for one more year upto 1-6-74. THE plaintiff has alleged that he was not paid for several items of work and that his security amount was not refunded to him. According to the plaintiff, Rs. 83,167.53 was due to him from the defendants. THE plaintiff asked the defendants to pay the amount claimed by him and also served a written notice dated 16-2-75 to appoint an Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. As the defendants failed to pay the plaintiff his dues or to appoint an Arbitrator, he filed an application to the Court on 13-9-1977 under Section 20 of the Act. THE plaintiff has prayed for the agreement to be filed in the court and for a direction do defendant no. 2 to appoint an Arbitrator and on his failure to do so, for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court and reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator for decision. The defendants contested the plaintiff's application mainly on the grounds that the dispute as alleged by the plaintiff did not come within the terms of the agreement between the parties, that the application of the plaintiff under Section 20 of the Act was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff did not have a cause of action to seek relief from the Court as his bills for several items were still under consideration of defendant no. 1.
(3.) THE trial court on a consideration of the matter held that the dispute between the parties was covered by the terms of the contract and that the plaintiff's application had been filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the plaintiff's application was allowed and defendant no. 2 was directed to appoint a sole Arbitrator within a period of two months. It was further ordered that in case the defendant no. 2 failed to appoint the Arbitrator, the Court was to appoint the sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.;