Between 29th May, 1972 to 19th June, 1972, the respondent accepted the four final bills and gave numberclaim declaration in respect of the four companytracts.
On July 11, 1961 the appellant filed an application in the Court of District Judge under Sections 8 20 of the Act, for filing the arbitration agreement and for an order of reference of the disputes to an arbitrator appointed by the Court.
The Court of First Instance held in favour of the appellants.
In matters of this nature, the main question is whether the application under Section 20 was within time.
For certain supplies made under the companytract the appellant made representations to the Government for payment and for arbitration of disputes.
By a letter dated June 23, 1952, the Chief Conservator declined to agree to a reference companytending that the matters desired to be referred were outside the arbitration clause.
The period of agreement was one year from September 1, 1960.
Under an arbitration clause in the agreement all disputes between the parties were to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi District Himachal Pradesh.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No.
It was followed by supplementary agreement entered into sometime in 1972.
On May 30, 1952 the appellants addressed a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh requiring that officer to submit the matters in difference to the arbitration of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi Distt.
On or about July 10, 1958 Government refused to refer the matter for arbitration.
The second appellant transferred all his rights under the agreement to the first appellant with the companysent of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Usman Military Contractor, Jhansi v. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, 1969 2 SCR 233.
That application was dismissed on 10th February, 1978 as being barred by limitation.
P. Gupta for the Respondent.
In appeal the Judicial Commissioner reversed the order of the Trial Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 757 of 1988.
The State of Himachal Pradesh companytended, inter alia that the application for filing the arbitration agreement was barred by law of limitation as the right to apply if any arose in 1950 and number in June, 1952 as alleged.
There was an appeal from the said decision to the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court by its impugned Judgment and Order dated 14th August, 1986 allowed the appeal.
Hence, this appeal.
It is stated that all the four companytracts were executed and companypleted by the first respondent on diverse dates.
There the appellant had entered into a companytract with the Government of India.
It appears that on or about 18th September, 1969, four agreements were entered into between M s. L.K. Ahuja Co. and Union of India, represented by the Executive Engineer, Northern Railway, Allahabad, for the companystruction of certain quarters.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Pramod Swarup and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
On June 22, 1955 the appellants applied to the District Court of Chamba for an order that the agreement be filed in Court and the disputes between them and the State be referred to the sole arbitration of the Deputy Commissioner of Mandi Distt.
The last one was on 30th May, 1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of by the judgment hereunder.
There this Court found that the second appellant had purchased from the Himachal Pradesh Government the right to extract and companylect certain medicinal herbs from the forests of Chamba District.
448 of 1978.
On 13th December, 1976, an application was filed by the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act .
The respondent wrote a letter to the Additional Chief Engineer, R.E.N.R. Allahabad, stating that Rs.1,91,137 were due on account of the work executed and requested him to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator.
On 4th June, 1976 a reply was sent to the above letter stating that there was numberdispute between the parties and, hence, numberquestion of appointment of any Arbitrator arose.
