STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MEHTA CHETAN DASS KISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar dated May 30, 1974 by which he accepted the application under section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act,, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'), filed by the non petitioner M/s Mehta Chetandas Kishandas, which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the applicant', and appointed Shri Nahar Singh, Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Hanumangarh Junction as arbitrator to whom the applicant was held entitled to refer the dispute.

(2.) IN brief facts may be noticed. The applicant submitted an application under section 8 (2) of the Act on July 27, 1973 against the State of Rajasthan stating that the applicant was a partnership firm registered under the INdian Partnership Act and Shri Gian Chand Mehta was one of its partners. That it worked as a Government contractor and that the applicant-firm at the time of the filing of the application under section 8 (2) of the Act, stood dissolved. The case of the applicant further in the application was that it had entered into a contract with the State of Rajasthan for the work of manufacture and supply of pakka tiles and bricks on kiln No, 2 RD 98000 of Rajasthan Canal regarding which agreement No. 42 of 1962 63 was duly executed between the applicant and the State of Rajasthan through the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, 1st Desert Division, Suratgarh, which Division was later on abolished and merged in Rajasthan Canal Project, Talwara Division. Hanumangarh Junction. It was mentioned in the application that the original agreement was in the possession of the State of Rajasthan. The applicant further alleged that it manufactured and supplied 3,93,680 Nos. of Pakka bricks, 25,47,766 Nos. of pakka tiles and 2 756 cft. of brick-bats of the standard size in respect of which, a balance of Rs 9,036 was then due to it besides the security deposit of Rs. 18,802 04 p. Certain items of illegal recovery from its running bills were also alleged for which it was stated that it was entitled to get the refund. According to the applicant, a sum of Rs. 31,070-42 p. , as detailed in the application, was recoverable from the State of Rajasthan. The applicant further alleged in para 5 of the application that 'he State of Rajasthan illegally debited the account of the applicant with a total sum of Rs. 28,894 04 p. on account of unsustainable recoveries and required it to deposit a sum of Rs. 1056/- as balance devide letter No. Kiln/93/rcp/fdd/tlw/5 3/68/2 dated January 10, 1968 of the Executive Engineer, R. C P. , Talwara Division, Hanumangarh Judiction. The applicant having come to know about illegal recoveries it immediately protested and repudiated the liability for the said recoveries, The matter was not decided for more than four years. Because of these circums-tances, according to the applicant, dispute arose between it and the State of Rajasthan, petitioner in this revision and opposite-party in the application filed by the applicant) within the meaning of clause 19 (a) of the agreement. The applicant therefore sent a registered letter dated July 10, 1972 calling upon the State of Rajasthan to appoint the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department as an Arbitrator to arbitrate in the above matter. This letter was served on July 12, 1972, but no appointment of the Arbitrator was made as envisaged by clause 19 (a) of the agreement within 15 days after the service of the said letter. The State of Rajasthan did not send any reply to the letter. It was therefore prayed by the applicant that an Arbitrator for settlement of the disputes and differences between the parties be appointed. The State of Rajasthan resisted this application on various grounds vide reply dated January 12, 1974. The learned District Judge framed the following seven issues on April 12, 1974 - (1) Whether the petitioner was a registered partnership firm and Gian Chand Mehta was its partner? (2) Whether all the partners of the petitioner firm should have been impleaded as parties to this petition? If not, what is its effect? (3) Whether the petitioner has waived his right to refer the matter to arbitration as alleged in para 11 of the reply and if so, what is its effect? (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in para 13 & 14 of the reply? (5) Whether notice U/s. 80 C. P. C. was necessary prior to the institution of the petition? If so, what is its effect? (6) Whether the petitioner is entitled U/s 8 of the Arbitration Act to gat an arbitrator appointed? (7) Relief? IN the first place, the learned District Judge fixed issues Nos. 2 to 6 for arguments but at the time of arguments, they were heard on all the issues. The learned District Judge decided issue No. 1 in favour of the applicant and found that the applicant was a registered partnership firm and Gian Chand Mehta was its partner Issue No. 2 was not pressed before him on behalf of the State and therefore it was decided against the State of Rajasthan. Issue No. 3 was decided against the State of Rajasthan whereby negativing the contention of the State to the effect that the applicant has waived its right to refer the matter to arditration as alleged in para 11 of the reply to the application. Issue No. 4 related to period of limitation. The learned District Judge found that the application of the applicant under section 8 (2) of the Act is not governed by any period of limitation as no period of limitation has been prescribed under section 8 (2) of the Act and Article 137 of the Limitation Act has no application to such a case IN these circumstances, issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the applicant and against the State of Rajasthan. Issue No. 5 was not pressed and therefore it was decided against the State of Rajasthan.