- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby its application for appointment of arbitrator in terms of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter for short referred to as `the Act'), has been declined.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that on 3.7.1985 the petitioner was awarded a contract for the supply of 2 lacs of HDEP bags. In pursuance of such agreement, the petitioner Corporation has given delivery schedule from time to time. In terms of such delivery schedule, the petitioner has prepared the bags for the supply to the respondent. On 24.10.1985 the delivery schedule was given for supply of the bags but on 6.3.1987 without receiving the entire contracted quantity of bags, the contract was cancelled. Since the contract was cancelled in violation of the terms of the contract, the petitioner communicated to the Corporation that the cancellation of the contract is against the terms of the Act and that 37500 bags have been despatched to Hanumangarh for delivery on 31.1.1986. Therefore, the petitioner demanded the refund of the security amounting to Rs. 57500/- and also called upon the respondent to lift the said bags within 10 days failing which the same would be sold either by public auction or private sale and the short-fall in the price will be recovered from the respondent.
(3.) The petitioner has raised the dispute and sought appointment of arbitrator by moving an application under Section 20 of the Act. It has been held by the learned trial Court that the petitioner has sought to raise dispute after the security has been withdrawn and, therefore, no dispute exists between the parties and the arbitrator is not liable to be appointed.;