Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition by Gurdev Ram against the order of the District Judge, Faridabad, dated 8th May, 1981, dismissing his petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Gurdev Ram Petitioner entered into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for arranging transport for carriage of the goods of the Respondent and for clearance of the railway receipts from the railway authorities at the Railway Station, Faridabad, for a period of one year from 25th February, 1974 to 24th February, 1975. It is averred by him that the railway authorities imposed demurrage upon the Corporation and the latter deducted that amount from the bills of the Petitioner. It is also alleged that some of the bills were also not paid to him. The railway authorities later refunded 75 per cent of the demurrage to the Corporation. The Petitioner called upon the Respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 60,721 and that in case they refused to pay the amount the matter be referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreement. It is averred that the Respondents failed to grant either of the reliefs. Consequently, he filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act with a prayer that the Respondents be directed to file the arbitration agreement in the Court and make a reference to the Arbitrator in terms thereof. The application was contested by the Respondents who took two preliminary objections, namely, that the application was bar -red by limitation and also under Clause 12 of the agreement, which provided that the decision of the Regional Manager regarding failure of the contractors and their liability for the losses, etc., suffered by Corporation were final and binding on the parties. It is averred that the Senior Regional Manager had already given his decision in respect of the failure of the Petitioner in performing his Contractual obligations and the losses suffered by the Corporation on that account. In the circumstances, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
(3.) IT was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the petition was barred by time and that the Petitioner was not entitled to a reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator as the matter had been decided by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation. The Petitioner went up in appeal before the District Judge, Faridabad, who reversed the finding of the trial Court on the point of limitation. However, he affirmed the finding of that Court on the other point and held that in view of the decision of the Senior Regional Manager, the matter could not be referred to the Arbitrator. Consequently, he dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Court to this Court.;