N.K.Batabyal, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THESE two applications in connection with matters coming under section 20 of the Arbitration Act arising out of two appeals are taken up together. In Special Suit No. 72 of 1991, the plaintiff/respondent alleged that they were entitled to several claims for being adjudicated upon by way of arbitration. The application was filed in respect of six different contracts corresponding to different work orders. The transactions relating to the said contracts were different and the arbitration agreement pertaining to the said Work Orders and contracts were clubbed together for a single reference. The other appeal arises out of Special Suit No. 73 of 1991 in which an application was filed in respect of four different contracts corresponding to four different Work Orders. The transactions relating to the said four contracts were different and the arbitration agreement pertaining to the said Work Orders and Contracts were clubbed together for a single reference. Pursuant to an invitation to tender, the plaintiff/respondent submitted its offer for the job of transport of coal from several collieries owned by the appellant to its washeries. Such offers were also submitted by other tenderers and on the basis of competitive bids given by the coal transport contractors, the plaintiffs offer was found to he acceptable and on the said basis, the plaintiff was awarded the contract for transport of coal upon observing all formalities. Letter of Intent and the Work Orders were issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also furnished Bank Guarantee by way of security as per the requirement of the contract. The work was completed and payments were accepted by the plaintiff/respondent without any protest. Final bills of the plaintiff/respondent for the subject contracts were processed after acceptance of the respondent and sent to the Area Accounts Office for payment. Deductions were made in terms of the contract and no amount had been unreasonably withheld or deducted. There were shortage of coal so supplied by the respondent. It was contended that the purported claims of the plaintiff/respondent for refund of the alleged amount were after thought. The sane controversy arose in Special Suit No. 73 of 1991 also.
(3.) THE main contention of the appellant is that the entire work and/or transaction had been carried out outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Agreements for arbitrations were distinct having regard to tire different agreements or contracts and the said contracts or agreements for arbitration could not be clubbed together giving rise to a single reference. THE further contention of the appellant is that the transactions under the contracts had long been closed and the plaintiff/respondent is trying to reopen the settled matters and there was no referable dispute as alleged that the suit and the application being out of time are barred by limitation.;