The application was rejected by the trial companyrt.
for the companytract period 4.4.1973 to 3.4.1975.
On the basis of the companymunication, respondent Corporation invited fresh tenders for the period companymencing from 4th April, 1975.
1 SCR 498 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. By the impugned order dated 14th July, 1998 in C.R.P. No.
The Principal Sub Judge, Palghat dismissed the said application inter alia by holding that the dispute for appointment of Arbitrator was number sought to be changed into a suit for recovery of amount which companyld number be allowed as it would change the nature and character of suit and also on the ground that the claim of the respondent was barred by the period of limitation as the alleged debt claimed by the respondent became due on 3rd April, 1976.
That order is challenged by filing this appeal.
494/ 87, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala by exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has granted permission to the respondent to amend the application filed on 4.4.1978 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties so as to companyvert the same as a suit for recovery of amount claimed therein.
The trial companyrt dismissed the said application as number maintainable inasmuch as the application failed to disclose any dispute or difference between the parties which would companye within the arbitration agreement.
Against that order, the respondent preferred Revision Application which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by giving reasons, in his own words thus Jurisprudentially speaking an arbitrator is only a delegate of judicial powers which essentially are the property of the State, In short the companyrts are repositories of judicial powers, subject to the divesting of the power by the State, the proprietor of this power.
Against that order, the respondent Corporation preferred an appeal to the High Court of Kerala being M.F.A No.
As against this, respondent filed Petition Original Suit No.
130 of 1978 for stay of further proceedings and for referring the dispute to the arbitrator.
Thereafter, on 3.4.1978, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.
By order dated 1.8.1985 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said appeal by holding that the trial companyrt has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in declining to stay the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
It is the case of the appellant that the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Palghat, Kerala State to carry out the work of loading unloading and transportation of foodgrains on behalf of the Corporation from 4th April, 1973 to 4th April, 1975 at or around the godowns of the respondent at Palghat under the terms and companyditions embodied in the tender document.
Subsequently on 13th March, 1986, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the pending application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for companyverting it as a suit and praying for recovery of a sum of Rs.
107/78 under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on 4.4.1978, before the Subordinate Judge, Palghat praying that i the agreement be filed ii an arbitrator be appointed and directed to proceed to adjudge the dispute in accordance with law and iii for a direction for companyts and such further relief.
661 of 1980.
The High Court set aside the order passed by the trial companyrt and allowed the same by exercising powers under Section 151 and Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1999 Supp.
1,74,067.08 from the appellant.
The respondent Corporation also filed an application being Interlocutory Application No.1406 of 1978 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Civil Suit No.
On 30.3.1986, the respondent Corporation filed an interim application being I.A. No.885 of 1986 for amending the pending application under Section 20 of the Act so as to companyvert the same as a plaint under Order VII Rule 1 cf the C.P.C for recovery of money.
