Appellant has signed the agreement aforesaid and the different pages of the tender form on behalf of appellant No.4, the firm.
The appellant No.4 M s Jain Rolling Mills is a registered partnership firm and the appellant No.1 hereinafter referred to as the appellant is the Managing Partner.
On appeal being filed the Division Bench came to the companyclusion that in view of Clause 14 of the agreement any dispute between the parties had to be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the respondent.
The appellant obtained a tender form from the said respondent on 16.11.1982.
A formal agreement was executed.
That petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge.
The tender form has an endorsement issued to M s Jain Rolling Mills, signed by the Executive Engineer, Housing Division, on 16.11.1982.
In the agreement which was entered into between the appellants and the respondent it was stated WHEREAS the Contractor has submitted tender for the work Supplying and stocking of Cold Twisted deformed Steel Bars Conforming to IS 1786 1979 of various dias at any D.D.A. Stores in Delhi New Delhi and the same has been acepted by the Authority on the terms and companydition companytained in the tender forms and companyditions attached herewith in the letter of acceptance dated the 27.12.82.
NOW THIS DEED WITNESS AS UNDER That the terms and companyditions companytained in the tender form and companyditions of the companytract attached to this deed, and also the letter of acceptane dated the 27.12.82 shall be binding between the parties.
The respondent issued a numberice inviting tenders for supply of steel bars of various diametres to the extent of 20,000 Mt. Tonnes.
Thereafter some dispute arose between the parties and it appears that the respondent vide its letter dated 23.10.1984 rescinded and annulled the companytract for the balance quantity of 3512.285 tonnes.
An Original Miscellaneous Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the appellants challenging the appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that appellants were number party to any Arbitration Agreement.
The appellants have questioned the validity of the order, passed by the High Court, rejecting the claim of the appellants that there was numberagreement between the appellants and the respondent Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the respondent to refer the dispute between them to an Arbitrator.
The Engineer Member of the authority in purported exercise of the powers under clause 14 of the agreement, appointed an Arbitrator to make an Award relating to the disputes between the appellant and the respondent.
After negotiations, the tender was accepted only for supply of 10.000 Mt. Tonnes of steel bars of various diametres.
P. SINGH.
J Leave granted.
The tender was submitted alongwith a companyering letter dated 18.11.1982.
