K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The civil revision is in relation to proceedings initiated under the Arbitration Act of 1940. On a dispute arising out of a contract whereunder the petitioner was required to supply certain goods as ordered by the Electricity Board, there had been a complaint of breach by the Electricity Board and an award had been passed by the Arbitrator. The notice of award had been sent and the Electricity Board had sought for a decree in terms of the award. On being served with notice from the court, the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside the award complaining of several defects in the award. The defects pointed out were that there had been no concluded contract; the terms of the arbitral agreement had not been read at the time when the petitioner signed; there had been a change of Arbitrator even after the initial appointment without his concurrence; the Arbitrator, who was appointed, was himself an employee of the Electricity Board and, therefore, not impartial; the award had been passed beyond the time which was allotted to him and hence, barred by limitation; and finally that the Arbitrator had also provided for interest which was not contemplated under the terms of the arbitral reference. The court had taken up each one of these issues and had confirmed the award. In appeal, the decision of the court of first instance was confirmed. It is against the two concurrent views of the courts declining to make any interference with the terms of the award that the revision has been preferred.
(2.) The case is to be examined from a limited perspective of the points which were urged before me. Several other points which were taken, such as, there had been a change of Arbitrator or that the employee himself had been appointed as an Arbitrator or that there was a bar of limitation or an award of interest which was not contemplated would not require to be dealt with because the counsel restricted his contention only to certain issues which I have detailed hereunder. Rest of the objections which had been taken before the court of first instance had been dealt with properly and confirmed by the appellate court.
(3.) As regards the contention which was taken before me that there was no concluded contract and hence no arbitral reference is possible, I would find that there is no merit in such a contention. Through a letter dated 12.07.1977, the petitioner has clearly stated that they confirmed that they would be ready to execute the order if placed on them under force majeure clause, earnest money and damage for delay on delivery provided under the specifications. On this letter of confirmation, there has been again a communication sent on 02.08.1977 placing the details of specified items to be supplied and reiterating also the clauses relating to the consequences of breach. I have, therefore, no difficulty in seeing that there is a concluded contract and the contention that there had been no concluded contract for reference to arbitration is without any meaning.;