AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (9) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t contained arbitration clause No. 25 under which it is provided that the disputes shall be referred to the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department and if he is unable or unwilling to act, to the sole arbitration of some other person to be appointed by him. Disputes arose between the parties and the plaintiff vide his letter dated 14th June, 1961 invoked the arbitration clause and required the defendants to appoint an arbitrator for adjudication of thirteen disputes detailed therein (Annexure B) to the petition. The Chief Engineer, vide letter dated 26th October, 1961 (Annexure-C) appointed an arbitrator to decide the disputes mentioned by the plaintiff except the disputes at items Nos. 10, 11, 12 (a), 12 (b), 12 (c) and 13 of Annex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e plaintiff are barred by time and that thus the disputes are not referable to the arbitrator. The following issues were framed on 6th of November, 1978:- (1) Whether the disputes mentioned in Annexure to the plaintiff's letter dated 24th August, 1976 to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. New Delhi, are not referable to the arbitrator Miss. K. P. Sarojini, al ready appointed by the defendants? (2) Relief. 3. The Plaintiff on 12-3-1979 filed an application (I.A. No. 805 of 1979) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The allegations are that certain disputes were referred to the arbitrator while the others were not referred by the Chie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der any Act. The Supreme Court differed with the view taken by it in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, AIR 1969 SC 1335 and held that Article 137 was not confined to applications contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure only. It was also observed that the interpretation given to Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable with regard to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 6. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shah Construction Co., Suit No. 160A of 1976 by order dated 22nd December, 1978 it was held by this court that an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which article prescribes a period of three years from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is correct that Km. K.P. Sarojini has already been appointed as an arbitrator by the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department but the disputes now sought to be referred were never referred to the said arbitrator at all. It cannot, therefore, be said that the plaintiff has taken any proceedings within the meaning of Chapter II of the Arbitration Act. The differences that have arisen between the parties have not already been referred to the arbitrator. S. 20 (1) of the Arbitration Act reads as under:- Where any persons have entered into an arbitration agreement before the institution of any suit with respect to the subject matter of the agreement or any part of it, and where a difference has arisen to which the agreement applie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the arbitration and the aggrieved party sought appointment of arbitrator for reference of the same disputes for the second time. 10. Disputes which have been detailed in Annexure-L are the disputes relating to the contract and the work in question. They are all, it is admitted covered within the meaning of clause 25 of the Arbitration Clause. I, therefore, hold that all the disputes raised by the plaintiff are referable to arbitration. The disputes detailed in the reference letter dated 29th October, 1977 (Annexure-N) are already pending before the arbitrator. I, therefore, order that all the disputes mentioned in the plaintiff's letter dated 24th August, 1976 (Annexure-L) excluding the disputes already pending before the arbitra....