M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.) THIS Rule is directed against order No. 69 dated Feb. 8, 1972 of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore. By the said order, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.
(2.) IT appears that the opposite party, the Union of India, invited tenders from Madras for the supply of "oil cocoanut" on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner submitted a tender for the supply of oil cocoanut. IT was alleged that the opposite party prescribed a new standard of specifications whereupon the petitioner claimed an extra charge at the rate of Rs. 25/- for such new specifications. Ultimately the Union of India accepted the tender as submitted by the petitioner and issued the letter of acceptance to the petitioner from Madras, IT was, however, alleged by the petitioner that by accepting such tender the opposite party did not accept the extra charge which was claimed by the petitioner for new specifications. Further, the opposite party imposed a condition, namely, the furnishing of security deposit of 5 per cent by the petitioner to which the petitioner never agreed. Upon the said allegations, it was the case of the petitioner that there was no concluded contract and, accordingly, the arbitration clause, which was contained in that contract, never came into existence. The opposite party, however, claimed that because of the non-performance of the terms of the contract, the opposite party had suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 60,340.44 and informed the petitioner that it would refer the matter to arbitration. In the application under Section 33, the petitioner has challenged the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement as contained in the alleged contract, which, according to the petitioner, was not a concluded contract. The opposite party entered appearance in the proceedings which arose out of the said application under Section 33 and opposed the same. The opposite party denied the allegations made in the application. It was the case of the opposite party that the contract was a concluded one and according to the arbitration clause, it was binding upon, the parties. It was further contended by the opposite party that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the application under Section 33.
(3.) THE only question that had to be considered by the learned Subordinate Judge was whether the had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the application under Section 33. After considering the submission made on behalf of the parties and also the provision of Clause 20 (3) of the alleged contract, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the finding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In that view of the matter, he dismissed the application under Section 33. Hence this Rule.;