Court orders arbitration for plaintiff's disputes, appoints new arbitrator, stresses compliance with arbitration agreement.

The court found that the disputes raised by the plaintiff were referable to arbitration as per the arbitration clause. The plaintiff's application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was deemed maintainable as the disputes had not been previously referred to an arbitrator. The court directed the appointment of a new arbitrator for all disputes outlined by the plaintiff, except those already pending before the current arbitrator. The decision emphasized the importance of complying with the arbitration agreement and procedural obligations under the Arbitration Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the disputes raised by the plaintiff are referable to the arbitrator already appointed by the defendantsRs.
2. Relief sought by the plaintiff.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The plaintiff filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking the filing of the arbitration agreement and the appointment of an arbitrator. The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause, and disputes arose, leading to the plaintiff invoking the arbitration clause. The Chief Engineer appointed an arbitrator to decide on some disputes but not all. After the plaintiff's acquittal in a related prosecution, the plaintiff requested the appointment of an arbitrator for additional disputes. The defendants argued that the application under Section 20 was not maintainable as the arbitrator had already entered the reference, and the additional disputes raised by the plaintiff were time-barred. The court framed the issue of whether the disputes raised by the plaintiff were referable to the arbitrator already appointed by the defendants.

Issue 2:
The plaintiff filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The plaintiff contended that there was no specific limitation period for filing such a petition until a court decision clarified the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The court held that the plaintiff had a bona fide impression regarding the limitation period and that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition. Consequently, the court admitted the petition beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Conclusion:
The court determined that the disputes raised by the plaintiff were referable to arbitration as they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. It was established that the disputes had not been previously referred to an arbitrator, and therefore, the plaintiff's application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable. The court directed the Chief Engineer to appoint a new arbitrator for all disputes detailed in the plaintiff's letter, excluding those already pending before the current arbitrator. The decision highlighted the significance of adherence to the arbitration agreement and the procedural requirements under the Arbitration Act.

---