A.K.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner M/s. Jagadhatri Rice Mills, hereinafter referred to as the said Mills, praying for revision of the order dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 47/2001 arising out of order No. 68 dated 17.03.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly in Miscellaneous J. Case No. 10 of 1992.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the above revision are that there was an agreement dated 17.12.1971 between the petitioner and Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971-respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, for milling of paddy by the former and delivery of the milled rice to the latter. One of the terms of the said agreement was that all disputes and differences concerning the agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent. The respondent vide its letter dated 22/24.08.1982 demanded payment of Rs. 1,76,497.21 towards the price of short-fall of resultant rice followed by filing a money suit being No. 19 of 1995 for recovery of the amount in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Hooghly. In the said suit, the present petitioner's application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was allowed vide order No. 43, dated 26.09.1988 and further proceeding of the suit was stayed. In view of the said order, Sri S. Gooptu, learned senior Central Government advocate was appointed as Arbitrator vide memo dated 05.06.1991 and and as he expressed his inability to take up the arbitration proceeding, the present respondent No. 2 Sri R.C. Mukherjee was appointed as sole Arbitrator. The petitioner instituted T.S. 10 of 1992 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly for declaration and injunction challenging the said appointment of Arbitrator as it is barred by limitation which was dismissed on contest vide order dated 17.03.2001 and it was affirmed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly by the impugned order dated 16.08.2002.
(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.;