83 lacs.
10,000 Engineer of above another Circle in the same Department.
430 dated October 4, 1983 which companytained arbitration clause was part of the companytract document.
State of Andhra Pradesh felt aggrieved and challenged the appointment of the arbitrator by filing a Civil Revision in the Andhra Pradesh High companyrt.
7246 of 1993 to understand the issue involved in these appeals.
These four appeals raise a companymon question on the interpretation of a certain G.O.M. issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh terms of which supposedly companystitute an arbitration agreement.
The Principal Subordinate Judge, however, declined to enter into any reference.
Respondent then filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.
G.O.M. No.
50.000/ , the respondent sent a letter to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam to enter into the reference as arbitrator.
The value of the companytract was over Rs.
There is, however, apparent companyflict on two decisions of this Court on the interpretation of the said G.O.M. We take the facts in Civil Appeal No.
This G.O.M. 430, in relevant part is as under Value of Amount panel of Arbitration Claims up to 1.
1940 which was allowed by the Subordinate Judge on April 13, 1992 and the disputes were referred to a sole arbitrator.
Disputes and differences having arisen of the value above Rs.
Appellant, the State of Andhra Pradesh, awarded a companytract on March 14, 1984 to the respondent for execution of certain work of companystruction or a canal across Sarada River.
50,000/ companypetent jurisdiction.
Superintending Rs.
