- (1.) M/s. Pankaj Kumar Neeraj Kumar submitted a tender in response to a tender inquiry No. NIT-140 inviting offers for sale of 41 metric tonnes of H. T/l. T. Copper Coils lying at various stores of the Haryana State Electricity Board. Tender of respondent was accepted by telegram dated January 20, 1986. Acceptance of tender submitted by the respondent was further confirmed by telegram dated February 3, 1986 and March 13, 1986. The earnest money required to be deposited along with the tender was adjusted against the amount of the respondent lying in deposit with the Board in respect of contract NIT 132. The respondent was required to deposit Rs. 30,000/- while accepting the tender. After some correspondence, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was deposited at Panipat on April 29, 1989. According to the respondent, this amount was deposited in terms of oral discussion that took place between the firm and the action committee of the Board. The case of the respondent is that the Board failed to deliver the contracted goods in spite of repeated demands and consequently, it committed breach of contract. The disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, in view of Clause 22 of the agreement, the matter was required to be referred to the arbitrator for decision. The request of the respondent to the Board to appoint arbitrator did not find favour with the authorities. This led the respondent to file a petition for appointment of arbitrator. The claim as made in the petition was contested.
(2.) THE trial court by order dated June 6, 1992 accepted the petition of the respondent and directed the Board to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 22 of the agreement, Exhibit A. 5. A further order was made to the Board for supplying the names of the persons to be appointed as arbitrator. Aggrieved by this order of the trial Court, the Board filed appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge by order dated October 21, 1992. It is in these circumstances, the Board seeks revision of the orders passed by courts below.
(3.) THE sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no concluded contract came into being between the parties and thus, question of appointing arbitrator did not arise.;