This order was pronounced on 30th July, 1990.
As regards issue number 4, the companyrt was of the view that having regard to clause 26 and in view of the case A.B.C. Laminart Pvt.
The Division Bench companysisting of the learned Acting Chief Justice and Justice Bedi heard the matter.
An ex parte award was made on 8.10.1990 for a huge sum of Rs.
The next appointment was that of Mr. V. Badrinath dated 12.6.80.
On 29.4.78, one Mr. G.R. Mirchandani was appointed as an arbitrator.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1991 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
In companytinuation of that judgment by order dated 20th August, 1990, Mr. Puranjit Singh, Superintending Engineer, Capital Project, Chandigarh was appointed as arbitrator with effect from 1.9.90.
One of the companytentions raised was after the filing of application under Section 8 since the respondent had number appointed an arbitrator, as required under Section 8 1 b of the Act, the right to make such an appointment had been forfeited.
Whether the petition is within time?
Then, again, Puranjit Singh took charge on 1.9.90 issued a direction to the Union of India to submit its defence on or before 20.9.90 The hearing date was fixed between 4th and 7th of October, 1990, at Chandigarh.
During the companyrse of companytract, he was required to do some extra work for which he made a claim.
Rajinder Sachar, E.C. Agrawala, Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, V. Palli and Atul Sharma for the Petitioner.
The following 5 issues were set down for trial Whether there are sufficient grounds for the appointment of an Arbitrator for referring the matter in dispute?
In the meanwhile, the question arose as to who had the companypetence to represent the companytractor in the arbitration proceedings.
Thereafter, the matter was pending without any adjudication.
The application was companytested on behalf of the respondent number only on merits but also on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction of the companyrt.
Whether this companyrt does number have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
Ltd. Another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, I.R. 1989 SC 1239, the Civil Court at Chandigarh had jurisdiction, as part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh.
Even then numberprogress took place in the arbitration, he also retired on 18.3.76.
The petitioner was required to obtain the succession certificate from the Collector, since the original companytractor died in June, 1982.
Thereafter by an order dated 27.4.76, Brig.
He also relinquished the charge on 14.9.84 since the petitioner did number companyperate with him for more than 4 years.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Therefore, the only companyrse left open to the companyrt was to appoint an arbitrator as required under Section 8 of the Act.
SDL Jaini was appointed as an arbitrator.
Therefore, without going into the other legal aspects, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition.On 13.3.1970, the tender was accepted and the acceptance was companymunicated.
A dispute arose companycerning this.
EMA Da Costa, Chief En gineer, Pune and Rajasthan zone was appointed as an arbitrator on 23.11.73.
Aggrieved by this, the matter was taken up in Civil Revision No.
The petitioner vide his letter dated 2.12.73, protested against the appointment of Brig.
R. Reddy, Addl.
In 1973, the petitioner executed the companytract.
Clause 70 of the companytract enabled the parties to go by way of arbitration.
Solicitor General, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Kitty Kumaramangalam and P.S. Narasimha for the Respondents.
He applied to the Engineer in Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi for appointment of arbitrator.
He relinquished the appointment on 11.4.80 since he was to retire on 31.7.80.
Whether the present petition is number maintainable?
Accordingly, Brig.
Thereafter, a companytract was signed at Lucknow.
The Union of India had number entered appearance.
However, the arbitrator number finding the statement of defence forthcoming before 20th September, directed the same be filed before 1st of October.
Therefore, a numberice was issued under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, on 28.3.83 Calling upon the respondent to appoint an arbitrator but numbersuch appointment was made.
13530 of 1991.
2934 of 1990.
Even then numberstatement was filed.
Relief.
It was specifically mentioned that the order revoked the appointment of Mr. A.V. Gopal Krishnan who was appointed as arbitrator on 25.7.90 for the second time during the pendency of the petition.
A request was made through a telegram from the Chief Engineer number to proceed with the arbitration.
2934 of 1990 by the Union of India to the High Court.
It is seen that the appointment of Mr. YNR Rao and Mr. Gopal Krishnan took place during the pendency of the application of the petitioner under Section 8 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh.
While the petitioner companyld number give detail of the four claims before the arbitrator earlier appointed, he would file as many as 29 claims before this arbitrator and they were accepted.
Therefore, he filed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator before the learned Sub ordinate Judge, Chandigarh.
90.67 lakhs.
