Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., dated 29th September, 1977 ; (AIR 1976 NOC 200) in an application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, 1940. The learned Judge by his order has stayed the suit of the plaintiff Atin Bose, the appellant herein, filed by Mm on or about the 20th June 1977.
(2.) THE claim arose out of a contract dated 25th September, 1974 between Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd, and Messrs. K. Lall and Co. a proprietary concern of the plaintiff Atin Bose. THE contractor Atin Bose was to be paid by the respondent Corporation for providing escorts at the rate shown in the schedule of rates of the work as per terms and conditions of the contract. THE said schedule including the notes thereof was to form an integral part of the said contract. Both the parties agreed that the terms and conditions as provided in the special conditions of contract and in general conditions of contract, would be applicable and would be binding on them, Of the special conditions which were provided therein, a condition read as follows:-- "Where the special conditions differ from the general conditions, those special conditions shall override the latter. All materials shall be considered in the possession, care and custody of the contractor and at the risk and responsibility of the contractor from the moment these have been delivered to and accepted in writing by the escorts until such time materials have been carried to and received in the conditions as delivered to the escort by an authorised officer of the Corporation at the destination." It would appear that the question of deduction by the Corporation would come in under such special conditions. The said contract provided a clause under the general conditions of contract and the same read as follows:-- "In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties in respect of rights and obligations of the parties as to the true intent and meanings of these presents and many articles of condition thereto, such dispute and differences of opinion shall be referred to the sole arbitrator nominated by the Managing Direct or of Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, and his decision shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties." It is the above clause on the basis whereof the petitioner for stay, the respondent-Corporation herein, contends that the suit was rightly stayed inasmuch as the disputes, which are the subject-matters of this suit, are covered by the above arbitration clause.
(3.) ON behalf of the plaintiff appellant, however, it is contended that the said clause is vague, uncertain, indefinite, ambiguous and does not in law or in fact amount to a valid arbitration agreement or clause and the parties are not bound by such clause. ON behalf of the appellant it is contended that the claim of the appellant in any event, as stated in the said suit, is not covered by the -said clause and the disputes mentioned in the said suit could not be referred to arbitration by the said clause which is being relied on as the arbitration clause by and on behalf of the respondent Corporation.;