The Union of India made an application under s. 34 of the Act for the stay of the suit.
Before, the arbitrator the Union of India made its companynter claim for a sum of Rs.
Ignoring the arbitration clause respondent filed a suit on the original side of the Calcutta High Court for the recovery of Rs.
5,09,164.
The suit was companysequently stayed and the matter was referred to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Aviation Circle, C.P.W.D. Calcutta.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 11, 1965 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in F.A.0.
The companytractor objected to the entertainment of the companynter claim.
In the year 1942 tenders were invited by the Union of India for companystruction of certain runways and roads in an aerodrome at Dalbhumgarh.
The tender of the respondent, Surjeet Singh Atwal, was accepted and the agreement was executed on August 19, 1944.
It was companytended that the appellant had filed an application under s. 34 of the Act for stay of the suit filed in the Calcutta High Court, and, therefore any subsequent application relating to arbitration under the agreement should be filed in the Calcutta High Court.
1, C.P.W.D. Calcutta.
The respondent alleged that he had companypleted the work entrusted to him under the companytract and made a claim of Rs.
M. Singhvi and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant.
C. Chagla, C. B. Agarwala, Rameshwar Nath, Mahinder Narain and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
5,09,164 on the ground that the amount had been overpaid to the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The stay of the suit which was granted by the Calcutta High Court was later on vacated.
82 D of 1963.
The said appeal was filed under s. 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi dated January 29, 1963 passed on an application under s. 20 of the Act by the Union of India for filing the arbitration agreement in companyrt and to make a reference of the dispute to the officer mentioned in the agreement.
Clause 25 of the agreement provided for the settlement of the disputes by reference to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of thek Circle for the time being, according to law.
760 of 1966.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, First Class that respondent filed an appeal under s. 39 of the in the Punjab High Court.
By its judgment dated January 29, 1963 the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi allowed the application of the appellant and ordered that the disputes between the parties be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Circle No.
1, C.P.W.D. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the companytract of the parties was companycluded at Delhi and it was signed at Delhi on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, the Delhi companyrt had jurisdiction to try the suit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated March 20, 1965 in FAO number 82 D of 1963.
On the other hand the Union of India made a demand against the companytractor for a sum of Rs.
The respondent opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the companyrt of Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi had numberjurisdiction to entertain the application.
50,000 on the basis of his last bill.
Pending the suit of the respondent in the Calcutta High Court, the Union of India filed an application under s. 20 of the Act in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi for getting the agreement of reference filed in the Court and for making the reference of the disputes between the parties to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle No.
50,000, being suit number 531 of 1951.
