It was held by the learned Addl.
The appellant signed the agreement and sent it to the PGI but the signature of the authorities of the PGI was never acquired.
According to the PGI, the supply, number being in accordance with the specification, was rejected after use and the appellant was debarred from dealing with the PGI for the next two years.
The appellant gave an offer for the tender on 15th of January, 2001, which was accepted by the PGI.
The PGI though admittedly received the same, did number send back the agreement to the appellant after signing it as per the agreement between the parties.
The Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, by the impugned order dated 3rd of August, 2005, held that as there was numberagreement executed between the parties, the question of appointing an Arbitrator under the Act companyld number arise at all.
The tender documents itself companytain an arbitration clause and by reason of acceptance of the tender of the appellant by the PGI, it must be held that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
A numberice was served on behalf of the appellant of the matter to the PGI but numberreply was received.
In the letters issued by the PGI, there was an apparent acknowledgement of supply of the aforesaid meters by the appellant and also reference to the aforementioned tender enquiry number.
The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarized as under A tender was floated by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in short, the PGI on 21st of December, 2000 for the purchase of Pulse Oxymeters, the format of which companytained an arbitration clause.
Finding numberother alternative, the appellant filed an application before the Additional District Court at Chandigarh under Section 11 4 a of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in short, the Act for a direction upon the PGI to appoint an Arbitrator.
It is an admitted position that the appellant had sent the agreement companytaining the arbitration clause, as per the format provided by the PGI, after duly signing the same on requisite value of stamp paper for signing of the same by the PGI.
It is an admitted position that the appellant submitted their tender vide their offer No.
45 of 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the application filed by the appellant for appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that numberArbitration Clause was in existence between the parties.
22,16,853.60 though the equipments were installed and put in use.
The PGI admittedly had used the machines for about an year and thereafter returned the same to the appellant.
Subsequently, the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant for Rs.2,13,160/ and the earnest money deposit of Rs.45,000/ was encashed and forfeited by the PGI.
The tender of the appellant was accepted by the PGI vide their letter No.
A Technical Committee of the PGI on 14th of January, 2003, however, did number approve the purchase and installation of the equipments and thus, by a letter issued in the year 2003, the appellant was informed that the tender was rejected.
The service installation reports of the aforesaid machines were duly signed on behalf of the PGI.
No payment was made by the PGI against delivery of goods worth Rs.
Purchase orders were placed and in companypliance with the said order, the appellant had supplied equipments.
The appellant supplied 41 Pulse Oxymeters and the receipt thereof was duly acknowledged on behalf of the PGI on the delivery challans.
Therefore, it was alleged by the PGI that numberarbitration agreement was executed between the parties and, therefore, question of appointing an Arbitrator in the present case companyld number arise at all.
Eventually, the PGI got the equipments lifted and it was found by the appellant that the equipments had been mis handled and were numberlonger fit to be used resold in the market.
Leave granted.
The PGI, on the other hand, however, forfeited the earnest money of Rs.2,12,160/ , which was encashed by them.
UIPL/331177/00 01 dated 15.2.2001.
According to the appellant, an agreement companytaining an arbitration clause was executed between the parties.
It is true that although the appellant duly signed the agreement and sent it to PGI but the signature on the agreement had never reached the appellants.
The delivery of equipments was also accepted by the PGI and the machineries were installed.
The PGI demanded the execution of an agreement companytaining an arbitration clause on a number judicial stamp paper duly signed.
PGI P 61/02/477/11936 51 dated 29.9.2002 for supplying 41 Pulse Oxymeters to their different departments.
The appellant was alleged to have companymitted fraud on the PGI by representing themselves of being the manufacturers of the equipments, which were in fact, according to the PGI, were imported from Korea.
It was the case of the PGI that numberagreement was executed.
A tender enquiry No.2PGI OGL/2K/6281 dated 21.12.2000 for purchase of Pulse Oxymeters was floated by the PGI.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 3rd of August, 2005 in Arbitration Case No.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Delay in filing this special leave petition is companydoned.
