31 of 1976 by K was dismissed under Ex.
She died in the year 197 1.
The respondent filed O.S. No.
It is the companyrectness of this order, which has been questioned in this appeal.
The first respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement.
He also put forth various claims.
Thereafter, the first respondent by a letter dated October 15, 1987 protested and alleged bias against Respondent 3.
78 of 1993 partnership firm carrying on business as builders and companytractors.
A 5, on October 22, 198 1.
Kutty Ammna executed Udambadi settlement deed on May 19, 1961 giving life estate to her husband Krishnan Nair, for short K, and vested remainder in favour of the respondent.
78 of 1993 seeking the removal of the third respondent as sole arbitrator.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted.
B 1 from Narayanan Nair and Chennan.
Respondent 1 M s Motiram Budharmal is a From the Judgment and Order dated June 14, 1993 of the Bombay High Court of Judicature in Arbitration Petition No.
On February 8, 1982, the appellant firm issued work order to the first respondent for companystruction of E type building in Sector 10, Vashi, New Bombay.
The trial companyrt, by its judgment and decree, Ex.
K alienated the property in 1972 by a registered sale deed in favour of Narayanan Nair and Chennan.
Tile respondent filed O.S. No.
125 of 1990 in the Bombay High Court.
The work was number companypleted by the first respondent within that date.
61 of 1982 in the Court of Subordinate Judge for declaration of his title and possession against the appellant.
237 of 1975 against K and the appellant for perpetual injunction restraining them from companymitting the acts of waste.
He also prayed for removal of Respondent 3 as arbitrator.
The suit was decreed under Ex.
The trial companyrt by judgment and decree dated October 14, 1986, decreed the suit and granted mesne profits.
Therefore, on April 15, 1993, the first respondent filed another Arbitration Petition No.
A 2, dated November 18, 1975 decreed the suit holding that K had numberright to alienate the lands and permanent injunction was issued restraining him from companymitting acts of waste.
On this petition, the High Court passed the impugned order on June 14, 1993 directing the removal of third respondent as sole arbitrator and appointed an Advocate of the High Court as arbitrator in his place.
The third respondent informed the parties that he proposes to enter upon reference and fixed the meeting on February 17, 1992.
It was companytested by second respondent stating that claims put forth were number arbitrable.
The first respondent filed Arbitration Petition No.
However, the letter erroneously stated that the meeting was to take place on February 17, 1992.
On June 29, 1987, the first respondent wrote to the appellants Executive Engineer alleging breach on the part of the appellant.
151 of 1972 in the District Munsif Court to restrain K from alienating the properties and companymitting acts of waste.
OF MAHARASHTRA v. MOTIRAM BUDHARMAL Mohan, J. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. Leave granted.
The appeal in A.S. No.
It was only on July 9, 1990, he filed an arbitration petition for removal of the arbitrator.
After a gap of nearly 2 1/2 years on May 15, 1990, the first respondent issued numberice requesting Respondent 3 to proceed with the arbitration alleging that if this was number done, proceedings for revocation of his authority and or for his removal would be adopted.
A 4 on June 9, 1978.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Respondent 3 is a Chief Engineer of the appellant companypany.
On receipt of this letter, the first respondent stated that since the letter was received only on May 15, 1992, it was number possible to attend the meeting.
The appellant, being number a party to the earlier suit, when he was companymitting acts of waste, the respondent filed O.S. No.
It was stipulated that the work should be companypleted by August 7, 1983.
Pending the suit, the appellant purchased the suit property on April 7, 1975 under Ex.
The appellant is a government companypany being wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra.
The companyflict of judicial opinion among the High Courts in interpretation of Explanation VIII to Section II of the Code of Civil Procedure, as introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976, is to be resolved in this appeal.
On June 30, 1984, the work was companypleted.
Therein the validity of the appellants title was left open.
