Case: Eastern Coalfields Vs. Joscon

2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It appears that the appellant herein issued several work orders to the respondent herein for construction of 32 units NHS (D/S). quarters at Rajpura Colliery, Kapasara, Bihar (now in the State of Jharkhand). As a result thereof, an agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent. It appears that certain disputes arose as regards the payment for the work done by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the respondent by letter datedsought reference of dispute to the arbitrator. Onthe Chief Engineer rejected the request of the respondent for arbitration. Thereafter, the respondent in September 1990 filed a petition under S.20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court appointed an advocate as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the appellant and the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a letters patent appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.3. The appeal court disposed of the appeal statingis submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that he does not oppose the prayer of the appellant in appointing named arbitrator in the agreement i.e. the Chairman and/or Managing Director of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. It appears that by order datedthe learned trial Judge appointed Mr Shyam Sunder Dutt, Advocate as arbitrator.In view of the submissions made by the respondent who was the petitioner before the trial court, the appeal is allowed. The order datedis set aside and the Chairman/Managing Director of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is directed to nominate an arbitrator to hear the disputes between the parties. The Chairman will nominate an arbitrator within two weeks from the date of service within 4 weeks from his date of appointment and will make and publish his award within 4 months from the date of entering upon reference.Aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before us.

Court's reasoning:
It is well known that in view of several decisions of this Court, this Court would look to only the judgment of the High Court (see Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003 (6) SCC 595 ). A party to a lis may raise several contentions in the petition on the grounds of appeal but would confine his argument only to one question. In the event, some other questions had been raised before the High Court which had not been dealt with by it, it is open to the party to file an application for review. In the instant case, the appeal was disposed of at an interlocutory stage by treating the appeal on days list. It is, therefore, inconceivable that the learned Judges would not notice the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.9. If the appellant was aggrieved against the statement of fact contained in the judgment, it was open to him to file a review before the High Court which he did not propose to do. Under such circumstances, we are not disposed to entertain this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.