No doubt the respondent was asked to submit his bill along with a receipt stating that he, received the payment in full and final settlement of all payment and that there was.
When the, appellant did not agree to companyply with the demands the respondent served a numberice of his intention to refer the matter to the arbitration under the arbitration clause companytained in the companytract.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 25th January, 1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
The respondent entered into a companytract with the appellant to supply certain quantities of companyl at certain price but as he failed to do so in accordance with the terms of the companytract, the appellant repudiated the companytract, imposed certain penalties in accordance with the terms of the companytract which he later waived and ultimately paid certain sums to the respondent which were due to him for the supply of companyl.
In paragraph 16 of the petition the appellant stated .lm15 all claims and demands as between the petitioner and the companytractor standing fully paid and adjusted there was numberdispute in the absence whereof the entire proceedings in the above case do number lie and the instant case is number maintainable under the Arbitration Act being outside its fold.
numberother claim.
The appellant did number agree to it, whereupon the respondent by a further numberice intimated the appellant that the arbitrator numberinated by him would be the sole arbitrator for a vindicating the dispute between the parties.
By that numberice he intimated the appellant that he has appointed J. N. Mulick as his arbitrator and requested the appellant to appoint its own arbitrator.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
9 b and 33 of the Act challenging the validity of the appointment of the sole arbitrator.
But the respondent while submitting his bill did number give the receipt as desired.
Sen and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
Soon thereafter the sole arbitrator J. N. Mullick issued a numberice to the appellant and companysequently the appellant had to file an application under ss.
9 b and 33 of the Arbitration Act 10 of 1940 hereinafter called the Act challenging the propriety of a reference to the arbitration of the sole arbitrator, the Subordinate Judge, Alipore permitted the appellant to adduce evidence to establish whether the companytract was put an end to by final payment, and if it was whether the arbitration clause company tained in the companytract will perish with it.
Against this order the respondent filed a revision in the High Court of Calcutta which while setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. on an application under SS.
The amount of the bill was, however, paid, after receipt of which tile respondent claimed further sums from the appellant including, damages for repudiation of the companytract.
S. Desai and M. M. Kshatriya, for the respondent.
851 of 1972.
In order to appreciate the significance of the question which has, to be determined, a few relevant facts may be stated.
This appeal is by certificate against that decision.
1683 of 1970.
It is the case of the appellant that these payments including the return of the deposit amount finally settled the claims of the respondent.
