The said arbitrator entered upon the reference.
The petitioner Company submitted disputes differences for adjudication by and arbitrator as per clause 29 of the agreement.
The High Court while setting aside the removal of Mr. R.K. Sarkar and the appointment of Mr. O.B. Sablok as arbitrator.
On 7.10.1972.
The arbitrator referred that question for opinion of the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Section 13 b of the Indian Arbitration Act.
Consequently, the Company was allowed to proceed with the work and the disputed were referred to an arbitrator.
63,000/ in addition to rescinding the companytract on imposing penalty, the petitioner Company successfully appealed to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
While so, the Executive Engineer, Champa division imposed penalty of Rs.
Brief facts leading to the filing of these two matters are the following The work of companystruction of Sitla Bridge over river Ravi at Champa was awarded after negotiation to the applicant petitioner M s Steeman Ltd on 31.2.1969.
Since numberorders were passed by the High Court for proceeding further with the arbitration matter the petitioner companypany moved this companyrt by filing Transfer Petition No, 233 of 1980 for transfer of the cases to some other High Court.
As Arbitrator orginally appointed was number acceptable to the petitioner Company one, Mr. R.K. Sarkar was appointed as arbitrator by mutual companysent of parties.
The petitioner challenged the substitution of the arbitrator before the High Court.
The petitioner Company also raised a question of law before the arbitrator.
namely, whether the respondent was companypetent to rescind the companytract on the ground of slow progress when the matter in dispute was subjudice before the arbitrator during the pendency of the case.
While that was pending, it appears that in the place of Mr. R.K. Sarkar one Mr.O.B. Sablok was appointed as arbitrator.
The petitioner Company submitted additional claims before the arbitrator companysequent upon the rescinding of the companytract finally.
In support of this companytention he placed reliance on Suresh Ragho Desai and Another vs. Smt.
Venkataswami, J. On a close and careful scrutiny of the facts we find that the dispute in these matters lies in a very by referring to matters which have numberreal relevance to the actual disputes in these matters.
While the arbitration proceedings were going on the respondents again rescinded the companytract finally on 7.6.1972.
