The work was number companypleted by the 1st Respondent within that date.
It is the companyrectness of this order, which has been questioned in this appeal.
125 of 1990 in the Bombay High Court.
on receipt of this letter, the Ist respondent stated that since the letter was received only on 15.5.1992, it was number possible to attend the meeting.
The Ist respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement.
3 as Arbitrator.
On 29.6.1987, the Ist respondent wrote to the appellants Executive Engineer alleging breach on the pan of the appellant.
He also prayed for removal of respondent No.
Therefore, on 15.4.1993, the Ist respondent filed another Arbitration Petition No.
On 30.6.1984, the work was companypleted.
It was stipulated that the work should be companypleted by 7.8.1983.
78 of 1993 seeking the removal of 3rd respondent as sole arbitrator.
The Ist respondent filed Arbitration Petition No.
However, the letter erroneously stated that the meeting was to take place on 17.2.1992.
It was companytested by 2nd respondent stating that claims put forth were number arbitrable.
Respondent No.
In view of this direction, 3rd respondent wrote to the parties intimating that he proposed to enter upon the reference and fixed the meeting for that purpose.
On this petition, the High Court passed the impugned order on 14.6.1993 directing the removal of 3rd respondent as sole arbitrator and appointed an Advocate of the High Court as arbitrator in his place.
3 is a Chief Engineer of the appellants companypany.
He also put forth various claims.
Thereafter, the Ist respondent by a letter dated 15.10.1987 protested and alleged bias against respondent No.3.
After a gap of nearly 2 1/2 years on 15.5.1990, the Ist respondent issued numberice requesting respondent No.
1 M s. Motiram Budharmal is a partnership firm carrying on business as builders and companytractOrs.
On 8.2.1982, the appellants firm issued work order to 1st respondent for companystruction of E type building in Sector 10, Vashi, New Bombay.
Mohan, J. Leave granted.
The appellant is a Government companypany being wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra.
Respondent No.
