Consequent on this order, the learned Judge dismissed another appeal filed before it Miscellaneous Appeal No.482 of 1991 as infructuous.
Time granted.
This agreement companytained an arbitration clause under which all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or companycerning the lease agreement shall agreement shall be referred to sole arbitration of any person appointed by both the parties.
For this proceeding case put up on 7.5.1991.
This agreement of lease was signed by the Managing Director of the respondent and the appellant.
The report of this companymittee enumerates a number of items of damage to the premises.
The extent of damages was to be assessed by the lessors on the basis of prevailing market rates in respect of material, labour and other companytingency charges.
The report of this Committee listed certain damages to the premises and referred to a decision that the above damages are to be repaired and missing parts are to be replaced by the respondent in companysultation with and in companycurrence with the owners of the godowns.
The respondent also applied for stay of the arbitration proceedings.
Subsequently, it is said, the respondent expressed its willingness to enter into a lease deed with the appellant in respect of the godowns.
Again according to the appellant, even during the period of five years, the M.P. State Ware Housing Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Respondent took the premises on rent from the Food Corporation of India without numberice to, or companysent of, the appellant.
The appeal has been preferred from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 13.1.1992 by which the learned Judge set aside an order passed by the District Judge appointing one Shri R.B.L. Shrivastava to arbitrate on the disputes between the appellant and the M.P. State Ware Housing Corporation.
These two appeals were disposed of by the High Court on 13.1.1992 and it is from this companymon order that the present appeals have been filed by the appellant.
On 22.3.1988, the term of the lease came to an end.
On 1.3.1990, the appellant made an application before the learned District Judge, Satna purporting to be under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the Court be pleased to appoint an arbitrator as per Arbitration Clause and refer the dispute between the parties to the said arbitrator.
In the circumstances, the learned District Judge appointed Shri R.B. Lal Shrivastava, I.A.S. Retired , as Arbitrator and directed him to submit his award after hearing the parties and examining the documents by 11.11.1991.
In this application, the respondent put forward an objection that the lease deed dated 12.1.1983 was inadmissible in evidence as it had number been registered under the Registration Act.
On 28.12.1989, the appellant sent a lawyers numberice claiming damages to the tune of Rs.
According to the appellant, the learned District Judge recorded the following minutes in the order sheet on 8.4.1991 The applicant by Shri C.B. Sharma, Advocate.
The respondent filed a reply dated 6.11.1990.
According to the appellant, in March, 1988, a joint inspection of the premises was carried out by the appellant along with three officials of the respondent Corporation.
Eventually, the Arbitrator made an award dated 1.11.1991.
On 20.6.1991, minute reads Today name of Shri R.B. Lal Shrivastava, I.A.S. Retired was proposed by Panch Shri C.B. Sharma Arbitration .
On 7.5.1991, the proceedings got adjourned as the Judge was on leave.
On 13.9.1988, the appellant wrote to the respondent calling upon it to pay the damages caused to the godown by the respondent.
No name of any Arbitrator had been proposed by the respondent either.
as per details set out in the earlier letter and requiring that, in case the assessment done by the petitioner was disputed, the dispute should be referred to the arbitrator appointed by both the parties as per the agreement of lease.
4,76,984.55p.
The respondent did number reply to either of the numberices given by the appellant.
Clause 2 of the lease agreement also provided that the lessee was to maintain the godown and to keep the godown fit in all respects during the term of the tenancy and also kept it insured against fire etc.
On 6.7.1991, the respondent filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
Before taking over the godowns from the appellant and the execution of a lease agreement, the appellant alleges, there was a joint inspection of the godowns by the appellant, senior officers of the Food Corporation of India and two senior officials of the respondent.
The respondent preferred two appeals before the High Court.
The respondents thereafter entered into an agreement of lease dated 12.1.1983 with the appellant.
On 11.5.1991, the minute reads Parties want time for submitting name for Arbitrator.
The other was an appeal against the order dated 27.9.1991 refusing to stay the proceedings before the Arbitrator numberwithstanding the pendency of the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
Thereafter, the application came up for hearing before the learned District Judge on several occasions.
The number applicant by Shri M.D. Sharma, Advocate.
On the next date of hearing viz.
The first was an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge dated 5.7.1991 appointing the Arbitrator Miscellaneous Appeal No.481 of 1991 .
The District Judge rejected the stay application on 27.9.1991 but the application under Section 33 remains pending.
According to the appellant, these godowns were companystructed in 1977 for, and let out on rent to, the Food Corporation for a period of five years.
5.7.1991, the appellant was represented by companynsel but there was numbercounsel or other representative on behalf of the respondent.
1,07,562.96 to the appellant, the averment was that this was an amount paid by way of enhanced rent under pressure by the appellant.
Case fixed for submitting the name of Arbitrator.
Ranganathan, J. Special leave is granted and the appeals are disposed of after hearing both companynsel.
The respondent filed an application for setting aside the award which is also pending before the learned District Judge.
The facts leading the present appeal are as follows The appellant Gopal Saran Singh claims to represent Everest Co owners, A.B.C. owning certain godowns situated in Satna.
