The challenge to the said demand numberice made by the appellant by filing a writ petition in the Kerala High Court is the demonstrable proof of the dispute.
A numberice of demand was served upon him on 30.5.1974.
The State then worked out the loss suffered by it on account of the appellants failure to carry out the work in accordance with the agreement and called upon the appellant to pay the same through the demand numberice dated 30.5.1974.
It was companypleted by another companytractor.
It is relevant to numberice that this demand numberice was questioned by the appellant by way of writ petition in the High Court of Kerala which was dismissed on 25.11.1978.
The State of Kerala filed an appeal which has been allowed by the Division Bench, as stated hereinabove, on the only ground that the very application under Section 20 was barred by Articles 137 and also under Article 113 of the limitation Act, 1963.
He directed both the parties to submit their panels of arbitator to be appointed within ten days from the date of the order for the purpose.
The appellant challenged the said numberice by way of a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala which was dismissed on 25.11.1978.
State of Kerala took proceedings under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovering the loss suffered by the State on account of the appellants failure to carry out the work in accordance with the companytract.
The operative paragraph of the judgment reads In the result the disputes and differences mentioned in para 10 of the plaint are hereby ordered to be referred to an arbitrator for arbitration.
It was terminated on 19.12.1968.
He rejected the various objections raised by the State.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.1991 of the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No.1 of 1987.
The work was re tendered and it was companypleted through another companytractor.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2683 of 1992.
Both parties are directed to submit their panels of Arbitrator to be appointed within 10 days from the date.
The agreement was entered into in 1966.
He did number companyplete the work within the period prescribed whereupon the companytract was terminated on 19.12.1968 and the work retendered.
The Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Kerala High Court allowing the appeal preferred by the State of Kerala and setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvanathapuram.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Heard Counsel for the parties.
Viswanatha Iyer and M.A. Firoz for the Respondent.
On an application made under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act by the appellant, the learned Subordinate Judge had directed the appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute and differences between the parties.
S. Poti and Ms. Malini Poduval for the Appellant.
A Division Bench set aside the said order on the ground that the very application under Section 20 was barred by limitation.
Leave granted.
An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the State of Kerala on 19.2.1966 whereunder the appellant undertook to carry out certain work within a period of ten months.
