Since the State did number appoint any arbitrator as provided for in clause 25 of the agreement despite letters by the respondent to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department P.W.D and the Secretary P.W.D. the respondent approached the High Court and a Learned Single Judge by order dated 6th September, 1991 revoked the authority of the Chief Engineer to act as an arbitrator and directed one Shri D.K. Roy Chowdhury to act as the sole arbitrator as suggested by the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
From the judgment and Order dated 7.5.
21 of 1991.
Nil of 1992 in Matter No.
1992 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
Som Mandal for the Respondent.
Facts are number in dispute.
S, Poti, and S.K. Nandy for the Appellant.
2544 of 1993.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
Parasaran, A.K. Ganouli, G.K. Banerjee and.
M. SAHAI, J. The short and the only question of law that arises for companysideration in this appeal is if an appeal was maintainable against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge under Section 39 1 of the Arbitration Act either under Section 39 2 of the Act or under the Letters patent jurisdiction.
Against this order State filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the objection of the respondent as number maintainable.
