AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge No. l, Hanumangarh dated July 17, 1990 in Civil Misc. Case No. 12/84.
(2.) THE facts briefly stated are; the petitioner was a registered firm at Hanumangarh. Balbir Singh s/o Hukam Singh r/o Hanumangarh Junction was its partner. THE firm was carrying on the business of handling/transporting Agent for the Food Corporation of India for their Central Warehouse Corporation, Hanumangarh Branch for transporting and other ancillary works relating to , urea manure. On a notice, inviting tender (for short NIT) for the works of handling, transporting of the goods, including urea from Hanumangarh godown to other points, the petitioner submitted its tender on 8. 4. 80. Negotiations were held on 29. 4. 80 and the petitioner received a telegram on 25. 4. 90, requiring the petitioner to attend the office of the non-petitioner and to produce the security amount along with other papers. However, the petitioner did not go to the office of the respondent No. 1 nor deposited the security amount. The petitioner was already working as handling/transporting Agent since 17. 11. 79 under an ad-hoc arrangement. He was permitted to work even after the second notice in pursuance of which he has submitted tender on 8. 4. 80. Ultimately, the agreement came to an end. It was, thereafter, that the petitioner received a letter from the Senior Regional Manager on 15. 12. 80 that a sum of Rs. 4,91,578. 14 was due to the Food Corporation from the petitioner. He is the authority named in the contract under which the petitioner was working. The relevant clause is reproduced below: - "clause XI (g): the decision of Senior Regional Manager in respect of such damages, losses, charges, costs or expenses shall be final and binding on the contractors. " Again the petitioner was issued a letter by the Senior Regional Manager for making payments of the same amount'which has been mentioned above. In the meantime; the Food Corporation of India appoint an arbitrator for adjudicating upon the disputes pending in between the petitioner and the respondents. In this dispute, the demand of Rs. 4,99,643. 94 was made by the Corporation. Against the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Corporation, the petitioner raised an objection that as no contract had been arrived at with regard to the tender invited on 8. 4. 80, the dispute could not be referred for adjudication to the arbitrator and that the remedy of the Corporation lie in filing a civil suit. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application u/s 5 read with ss. 12 (2) (b) and 33 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Sriganganagar, for revoking the arbitration clause on the ground inter-alia that there was no contract in between the parties. The Arbitrator, to whom reference was made, was restrained by the District Judge from giving an award.
(3.) ON 17. 7. 90, the District Judge, decided the case by the impugned judgment. His decision can be divided into two parts. The first was for the period upto May 23,1980 and the second thereafter. The District Judge upheld the contention of the petitioner partly and finding that the dispute for the period upto May 23,1980 was not referable, decided the application in favour of the petitioner but for the period subsequent to the aforesaid date i. e. May 23, 1980, the view taken was that arbitration was competent. Against the aforesaid judgment, the present revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there could be an adjudication proceedings, provided that there was a contract in between the petitioner and the Food Corporation of India. But as no contract had been arrived at, there was no question of an arbitrator being appointed for adjudicating the dispute after May 23, 1980. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner had been called, after submission of the tender, by the office of the Food Controller, to come with certain papers and security. The petitioner did visit the Office but no security was either furnished by him nor were papers submitted. Consequently, no contract was arrived at. As no contract was arrived at, the clauses relating to making of reference to arbitrator for deciding the claim of the Food Controller, respondent No. l did not arise.;