KASHINATH KESH Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional amplication is directed against an order No. 12 dated 26. 3. 92 passed by Sri T. K. Palodhi, Assistant District judge, Durgapur in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1992, whereby the learned Assistant district Judge, Durgapur, rejected the application under Section 33 of the arbitration Act, along with another application under Section 41 (b) of the arbitration Act filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner inter alia is that he entered into four contracts with the Steel Authority of India Ltd. representing the Durgapur Steel Plant viz. (a) supply of trucks without labour vide tender No. CRDWD/genl/87-88, (b)handling the refractory materials vide tenden No. CRDWD/6402/88-89, (c)cleaning and allied works in the ceased plant vide tender No. CRDWD/0400/ 87-88 and (d) transportation of materials to refractory department vide tender no. CRDWD/5560/88-89. It is the case of the petitioner that he carried out the jobs as covered by the four contracts and submitted his bills. The bills were not paid and were with held wrongfully. Thereafter came a termination order of three contract jobs as referred to (b), (c) and (d) above by letters dated 14. 1. 89 and 16. 1. 89. The petitioner impugned such action of the opposite party No. 1 by filing a writ application. The said writ application ultimately came up for hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee as his Lordship then was, who recorded an order in the form of consent by the respective parties that the claims of the petitioner in respect of works rendered by him would be determined by arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement governing the parties in respect of the contracts in dispute. His Lordship further held that once the matter is referred to arbitration, the Arbitrator shall dispose of the matter with utmost expedition. This order is dated 26. 9. 89. The opposite party No. 1, thereafter appointed Sri N. C. Nandi (opposite party No. 2) as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the claims of the petitioner. The opposite party filed its counter-claim in the arbitration proceedings but did not put forward any claim of relief by way of counter-claim under the said works orders. Only after a long lapse of time the opposite party No. 1 filed an application to the effect that it suffered certain losses and damages for non-execution of four contract jobs on the lines indicated by the opposite party No. 1.

(3.) ON an application being filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act by the petitioner challenging the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement and another application being filed under Section 4 (b) for an appropriate order staying further proceedings before the arbitrator, the learned Assistant district Judge after hearing the submissions of both the parties rejected both the applications holding inter alia that since the arbitrator has been appointed under the order of the Hon'ble High Court for determination of claims of the petitioner in respect of the works done by the petitioner, it cannot be the intention of the said Hon'ble Court that the opposite party No. 1 will be debarred from making any counter-claim against the petioner. Hence the dispute raised by the opposite party No. 1 by its letter dated 7. 10. 91 fall under the same reference for which the opposite party No. 2 was appointed the arbitrator. Thus there was no illegality done by the arbitrator in issuing a letter dated 22. 11. 91 fixing the date of the proceeding. The application under Section 41 (b) was also rejected accordingly.