MILAP CHANDRA JAIN,J. - (1.) These two miscellaneous appeals have been filed against similar orders of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated November 27, 1990, by which applications of the petitioner -appellants moved under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, have been dismissed. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.
(2.) In the year 1984, the appellants submitted two tenders for the supply of cables. They were accepted. Two agreements were accordingly executed. They furnished bank guarantees, one for the security and the other for the performance. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not make payment as per agreements and deducted certain amounts. In each case, they requested for appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 31 of the agreements but they did not appoint any arbitrator. Applications under Section 20, Arbitration Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), for the appointment of an arbitrator were moved. Along with these applications, applications under
(3.) Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section 41 of the Act were also moved for restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from encashing the bank guarantees. The applications moved under Section 20 of the Act were allowed but applications moved under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, were dismissed by the impugned orders.;