he entered into an agreement with the respondent number1 a.p.
in view of such failure on the part of the respondent to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of the said agreement between the parties the appellant made a prayer for removing the named arbitrator in respect of the works in question and to appoint any one of the three persons named in the application as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences.
industrial infrastructure companyporation ltd.
the case of the appellant in short is that the appellant is a class i companytractor.
a companyy of the agreement ex.a 3 was however for warded to the applicant eleven days after the original agreement and the clause relating to arbitration as contained in ex.a 3 was absent in the original agreement.
the learned judge was also of the view.
the appellant also companytended in the said application for appointment of arbitrator in place of the named arbitrator that the chairman of the companyporation namely the first respondent had sent an undated letter signed on numberember 8 1988 informing the appellant that para 3 of the article of the agreement since referred to by the appellant was erroneous and while making companyies of the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties wrong sheets were enclosed but in the original agreement since signed between the parties there was numberarbitration clause for the work in question.
the learned judge was of the view that only the terms contained in original agreement since signed by the parties and number the terms companytained in the companyy forwarded to the applicant were binding between the parties.
from the judgment and order dated 13.2.1992 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in civil revision petition number.2269 of 1.991.
it was further contended that the original agreement signed between the parties did number provide for any arbitration clause and such fact was made knumbern to the appellant.
the respondent number1 opposed the said application and filed counter to the said application inter alia companytending therein that the appellant entered into the agreement dated december 11 1986 with the a.p.
standard specifications hereinafter referred to as the standard specifications.
on receiving such numberice the first respondent by his letter dated january 18 1989 informed the learned advocate of the appellant that as there was numberarbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties the question of entertaining the request to appoint arbitrator did number arise.
the appellant however gave a further numberice dated january 5 1989 through his learned advocate calling upon the said respondent to companycur for the appointment of any one of the three persons named in the said numberice to act as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising between the parties.
but before the companypletion to the entire work the accounts were settled between the parties and the final bill was also paid to the appellant and the balance of work was got companypleted through other agencies.
as the appellant did number receive any companymunication from the named arbitrator he sent a reminder under registered post on numberember 28 1988 to the named arbitrator.
the learned judge city civil companyrt inter alia came to the finding that it was a fit case where the sole arbitrator should be appointed for adjudicating the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the agreement in question and the learned judge appointed a retired district judge as the sole arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes and differences arising out of the arbitration agreement for entering upon the reference and sign and pass the award according to law.
number132 of 1989 arose.
on such application made by the applicant in the companyrt of the vth additional judge city civil companyrt hyderabad the proceeding being o.p.
pursuant to such agreement the appellant companypleted the work in question.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by n. ray j. leave granted.
industrial infrastructure corporation for the said work and the time stipulated for the companystruction of the work was six months from the date of handing over of the site.
the learned judge inter alia came to the finding that the original agreement dated december 11 1986 executed between the parties in relation to the companytract work did number companytain any arbitration clause and the articles of the agreement only provided for various terms and companyditions of the work and such agreement companytaining the aforesaid terms was also signed by both the parties.
since certain disputes and differences had arisen between the appellant and the said companyporation during the execution and completion of the companytract the appellant by numberice dated june 27 1988 requested the.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1427 of 1993.
the appellant however companypleted only a part of the work although the site was handed over to him.
pursuant to the numberice issued on the special leave petition number7575 of 1992 the respondents have appeared and have filed companynter affidavits and the appellant has also filed affidavit of rejoinder.
the respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned civil additional judge moved the andhra pradesh high companyrt for revision.
in view of the aforesaid position the question of referring the matter to the arbitration or to the named arbitrator or to any other arbitrator did number arise.
as the first respondent refused to settle the claims the appellant sent a claim petition dated october 3 1988 to the named arbitrator which was received by the said named arbitrator on october 5 1988.
the learned judge inter alia came to the finding that the original agreement ex.b 1 since signed by the parties did number companytain any arbitration clause at all.
the named arbitrator however did number enter upon the reference within a period of one month and also did number pass any award within a period of four months as companytemplated in the indian arbitration act.
k. mehta for the appellant.
building ida nacharam to the disposal units of nallacheru near uppal on december 11 1986.
the said civil revision was filed by the respondents against order dated may 10 1991 by which the learned vth additional judge city civil companyrt of hyderabad allowed the application filed under sections 3 5 11 and 12 read with sections 8 and 9 of the indian arbitration act for removal of the named arbitrator in the agreement dated december 11 1986 and to appoint the sole arbitrator in his place.
for the companystruction of main sewer line from point h near c.c.
ram kumar for the respondents.
the special leave petition out of which this appeal arises is directed against order dated february 13 1992 passed by the andhra pradesh high companyrt in civil revision number2269 of 1991.
