Being aggrieved, both the appellants as well as the respondent companytractor approached the High Court.
The appellants herein agreed to refer for arbitration only claim number4 and the rest of the claims were excepted matters and were specifically excluded from the purview of the arbitration by virtue of clause 63 of the General Conditions of the Contract as well as by virtue of Special Conditions of the Contract.
The District Judge vide his judgment order dated 11.12.1995 referred claims number3, 4 5 to be companysidered for arbitration by the arbitrators already appointed for companysidering the claim number4.
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are as under In the present case, the respondent companytractor had demanded arbitration as per clause 64 of the General Conditions of the Contract and had raised five claims.
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.1151 1152 OF 2001.
Union of India Another Appellants Versus Raunaq International Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. These civil appeals are directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur delivered in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.479/1996 and 501/1996 dated Ist December, 1999.
The respondent thereafter approached the District Judge by filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for the appointment of two independent arbitrators for settling all his five claims.
The legal issue involved in these appeals is Whether the Court while deciding the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can companysider the issue as to what is arbitrable and what is number arbitrable, or judicial officers role is only ministerial or mechanical in nature i.e. referring the dispute to arbitrator if there is an arbitration agreement and some disputes have arisen out of the companytract between the parties?
