Case: M/s. National Heavy Engineering Co-operative Ltd Vs. M/s. King Builders

3. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 283/92, the order passed by the District Judge on 24.2.1992, allowing the application filed by M/s. King Builders (hereinafter referred to as the `contractor) for appointment of an arbitrator and directing the company to take steps for appointments of an arbitrator in accordance with Clause 66 of the agreement within one month, was under challenge. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 825 of 1994 was filed by the contractor challenging the order dated 31.1.1994 dismissing the contractors application under Section 8 of the Act.4. The High Court, on consideration of the matter, dismissed appeal No. 283 of 1992 and confirmed the order dated 24.2.1992 passed by the Subordinate Judge and allowed the appeal No. 825 of 1994 and set aside the order dated 31.1.1994 passed by the Subordinate Judge. The High Court, while allowing the contractors application filed under Section 8 of the Act, directed the District Judge, Jaipur city to appoint an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute which has arisen between the parties within one month. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the contractor in this Court, it has been averred inter alia that the trial Court, in compliance of the judgment and order of the High Court, appointed one Shri M.M. Singh, retired Additional Chief Engineer, P.W.D. as the arbitrator. It is relevant to state here that the Tilam Sangh had suggested appointment of Sri K.C. Puri, a former Executive Engineer to act as the sole arbitrator.

Reasoning:
8. Considering the nature of the controversy raised in the case, we specifically asked the learned counsel for the appellant if the appellant has any serious objection against the continuance of the arbitrator appointed by the Court and if so, the basis for the same. We also put it to the learned counsel that whether the appellant is agreeable for appointment of a retired High Court Judge as arbitrator. To both these questions, the learned counsel could not offer any specific reply.9. As noted earlier, the District Judge appointed a former Addl. Chief Engineer as arbitrator in compliance with the direction in the order passed by the High Court. It is a stated by learned counsel for the respondent that the said arbitrator has already entered upon the reference but the matter could not proceed further in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 30th July, 1999.10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of the High Court confirming the appointment of arbitrator by the lower court warrants no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.