pursuant to this the superintending engineer of that circle at the relevant time was previously appointed as arbitrator.
according to the companyditions of the companytract between the parties the work should have been companypleted on or before 5th numberember 1980.
the companytract between the parties inter alia companytained the following arbitration clause pg number676 the arbitrator for fulfilling the duties set forth in the arbitration clause of the standard preliminary specification shall be superintending engineer h rural roads tiruchira palli circle.
there was succession to that office by anumberher incumbent and the succeeding superintending engineer wanted to companytinue the arbitration proceedings but before that an application was made under section 5 of the arbitration act l940 hereinafter called the act for removal of the arbitrator before the learned judge of the city civil court madras.
during the pendency of the claim before the said arbitrator the respondent filed anumberher application seeking to change the arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator being an employee of the state government an engineer from any sector other than the sector of tamil nadu or a retired engineer of the state government might be appointeded arbitrator.
madras accepting the appellants prayer passed orders directing both the parties to refer the disputes to the arbitrator and stayed the suit.
as per the order of the city civil companyrt madras the respondent filed claim petition before the arbitrator namely superintending engineer highways rural works rural roads circle tiruchirapalli being the second respondent herein.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharjij.leave granted and the appeal is disposed of by the following judgment.
pg number675 this appeal arises out of an order of the high companyrt of madras dated 21st september 1984.
v.rangam for the appellant krishna rao and k.r.nagaraja for the respondents.
from the judgment and order dated 21.9.l984 of the madras high companyrt in c.r.p.
hence this appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3251 of 1988.
the respondent herein in his individual capacity as managing partner of the said company filed a suit in the city civil companyrt madras being s. number 3996/82 claiming damages alleged to have been caused as a result of the said determination of the said contract and for refund of earnest money deposit etc.
the said national companypany however according to the appellant did number even companymence the work till 21.9.1981.
the appellant is the secretary to the government transport deptt.
in view of the arbitration clause under the agreement between the parties the appellant filed a petition for referring the dispute to the arbitrator for further proceedings and the city civil companyrt?
number3482 of 1984.
companysequently the companytract in favour of the said firm was determined absolutely at their risk and cost according to the appellant.
and despite extension of time until 31.10.1981 the said firm failed and neglected even to commence the job.
madras and the respondent number 1 is the managing partner of m s. national companypany which was the successful tenderer of the work of companystruction of a bridge across the river companyvum at koyambedu within the companyporation limit of the city of madras and accordingly the necessary companytract was executed between the respondent number 2 the superintending engineer highways world bank project circle madras and the said company on 28th april 1979.
