Samaresh Banerjea, J. - (1.) The present revisional application is directed against Order No. 9 dated the 12th September, 1996 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Misc. Case No. 174 of 1995, allowing the application of the opposite party under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court. Admittedly the petitioner which is a Government of India enterprise invited tenders for providing noon meals and afternoon snacks/tea etc. to its employee in the Bonhoogly Industrial Estate wherein the tender submitted by the opposite party was accepted and agreement was duly executed by and between the parties on 9.9.91 for a period upto 31.8.92. Clause (t) of the said agreement provides for reference of disputes and differences between the parties to the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner for arbitration. The aforesaid agreement was replaced by another agreement dated 3.9.93 which also contains a similar arbitration clause. Admittedly, differences and disputes arose between the parties for which the opposite party made several representations to the present petitioner. As according to the opposite party the Arbitrator declined to act in spite of. raising of dispute, he applied under Section 8 of the Act for removal of the said Arbitrator and for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court which has been allowed by the Trial Court.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that Trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass such order allowing he application of the opposite party under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act inasmuch as only in case of refusal of the named Arbitrator the provision under the said Act can be invoked but in the instant case admittedly the Arbitrator in the agreement having been named and the opposite party never having raised and dispute before the Arbitrator asking him to enter into reference, the question of refusal of such named Arbitrator to act could not arise.
(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand has brought to the notice of the Court several letters written to the various authorities including the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner corporation and submitted that such letters along with the letter ultimately addressed to the Corporation asking for appointment of Arbitrator, if are read together there will be no manner of doubt that the Arbitrator declined to act although dispute was raised before him and under such circumstances no interference is called for with the order of the Trial Court.;