R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 19.3.1998, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who dismissed the appeal of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called "the Board") and affirmed the order dated 17.9.1994 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Faridabad who dismissed the application under Sec. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act filed by the present petitioner -Board.
(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent M/s. Bhupinder Steels Pvt. Ltd. against the Board and the prayer made by the plaintiff was that the Board be restrained from realising the amount of Rs. 34,72,315/ -. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the maximum demand (contracted demand) allocated for the factory premises was 1400 KVA and the connected/sanctioned load was 1600 KWH. The respondent found that the maximum demand indicator (MDI) was registering a reading far more than the actual one, therefore, the plaintiff requested the Board to carry out the fault by installing a check meter which was actually installed with effect from 25.5.1989 to 31.7.1989. The Board after comparing the check meter reading and existing meter installed with the factory of the respondent, sent the impugned bill which was disputed by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the Board filed an application under Sec. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act praying that the suit may be stayed and the natter may be referred to the arbitration as per clause No. 29 of the agreement Ex.A.I. It was pleaded by the Board that the Board has issued the impugned bill to the plaintiff in accordance with the rules and regulations and as per the tariffs of the Board and the plaintiff firm is liable to pay the said amount. According to Clause 29 of the agreement A.I. every dispute, difference, question, matter or claim arising out of supply of electricity has to be referred to the sole arbitration of Chief Engineer or his nominee. It was pleaded by the Board that it was always ready and willing to get the matter in question decided by the sole arbitrator.
(3.) Notice of the application was given to the plaintiff. Reply was filed and it was contended that plaintiff never agreed to get all the matters adjudicated through the arbitrator. The bill was not issued in accordance with the Rules and Regulations because Clause 29 was never agreed upon by the plaintiff. The impugned bill is not only illegal but also the defendant has no right to recover the same.;