Arbitration clause by named officer upheld; unilateral reference valid, and later petition not barred after prior withdrawal.

A dispute clause referring controversies to a named Superintending Engineer can amount to an arbitration agreement even without the words "arbitrator" or "award", if it contemplates final decision of disputes between the parties. A contractor's invocation of such a clause is not invalid merely because the reference was made unilaterally, since the named officer must still call for the other side's claim and proceed according to law. On the procedural objection, the later petition was not barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC because it had already been filed before withdrawal of the earlier application. The appeal succeeded and the matter was directed to arbitration before the Superintending Engineer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second petition was barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the work order contained an arbitration agreement and whether the contractor's reference to the Superintending Engineer was invalid as a unilateral reference.

Issue (i): Whether the second petition was barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The earlier application had been filed before the first application was withdrawn. The rule against a fresh proceeding after withdrawal was held inapplicable on the facts because the later petition was already on record before the withdrawal of the earlier one.

Conclusion: The petition was not barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the finding against the contractor was reversed.

Issue (ii): Whether the work order contained an arbitration agreement and whether the contractor's reference to the Superintending Engineer was invalid as a unilateral reference.

Analysis: Clause 5 of the work order referred disputes between the parties to the Superintending Engineer of the Circle, which was treated as an arbitration clause. The absence of the words "arbitrator" and "award" was held not decisive where the clause contemplated reference of disputes to a named officer for final decision. The contractor's invocation of the clause was held not to be an illegal unilateral reference; once approached, the named officer was bound to call for the other side's claim and proceed according to law.

Conclusion: There was an arbitration agreement between the parties, and the reference made by the contractor was valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order refusing relief was set aside, and the matter was directed to proceed before the Superintending Engineer as arbitrator for adjudication on the contractor's claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute clause referring controversies between the parties to a named officer for final decision may constitute an arbitration agreement even without the words "arbitrator" or "award", and a reference made by one party under such a clause is not invalid merely because the other side has not yet participated.

---