Judgment:
C.L. Chaudhry, J.
(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions 638 and 639/1991 which are directed against the order of Subordinate Judge by which the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator stayed till the decision of the main petition. The respondent entered into a contract with the Union of India for the supply of meat and eggs during the period 1973-74. Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of the said contract. The respondent/contractor moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of Shri R.C. Jain, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, for appointment of an arbitrator and reference of the disputes between the parties.
(2) The Union of India filed a reply to the said application wherein it was stated that the Union of India has already appointed major General J.R.K. Batra as the arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Under these circumstances the Court ruled that since that arbitrator has already been appointed the application under Section 20 had become infructuous. However, on a petition under Section 41 filed Along with Section 20 application the Union of India was restrained from recovering and/or with-holding the payment of the bills and the security of the contractor in all his contracts till the adjudication of the disputes by the arbitrator. The award given by the arbitrator was set aside on' the ground that the arbitrator had gone beyond the scope of reference. Quarter Master General. Army Headquarters New Delhi again appointed Brig. A.S. Sumra and enlarged the scope of reference to decide upon the claim of Union of India also. The said arbitrator was removed by the Subordinate Judge and in his place with the mutual consent of the parties Brig. S.P. Talwar was appointed as an arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award which is pending before the Subordinate Judge for making rule of the Court. The Union of India after a lapse of 17 years have got appointed Brig. B.G. Shively, as an arbitrator to decide about its claims, The application was filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act for determining the effect of the arbitration agreement and the reference. It was pleaded in the application that the arbitration Clause had ceased to exist after the specifically mentioned time of six months and the agreement was no more in existence in terms of Clause (d) forming part of the contract. The demand for arbitration had to be made within a period of six months from the date of termination of the contract. The last date of supply was 31.3.1974 and the demand for arbitration could be made up to 30.9.1974. Along with this petition an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act was Filed for stay of the proceeding before the Arbitrator.
(3) The application was contested on behalf of the Union of India inter alias on the ground that Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
(4) After considering the relevant contentions of thee parties the Court prima facie observed that Delhi Courts had the jurisdiction. It was further observed by the Court that the previous arbitrator was appointed by a Sub-ordinate Judge of Delhi with the consent of the parties and as such all sub-sequent applications arising thereforem had to be Filed at Delhi. The Court allowed the interim prayer and stayed the proceedings before the arbitrator. Aggrieved by this order the Union of India has Filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter involved.
(6) Mr. Joseph appearing for the Union of India contended that Delhi Court have no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. On the other hand the contention raised by Ch. Amarjeet Singh appearing for the respondent is that the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. was filed at Delhi and the previous arbitrator was also appointed with the consent of the parties by a Subordinate Judge at Delhi and as such all subsequent applications were required to be filed at Delhi in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act.
(7) I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration the respective contentions of the parties. In my opinion I do not find that the Trial Court had. acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The Court has formed a prima facie view of the matter that Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Section 31 of the Arbitration Act reads as under:-
'NOTWITHSTANDING anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the lime being in force, where in any reference any application under this Act has been made in a Court competent to entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference and the arbitration proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.'
triable issues are involved which need investigation. The Court has formed a tentative opinion which does not call for interference. The application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is still to be decided on merits.
(8) In the result I see no force in this Revision Petition and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(9) Since the dispute relates 10 the period 1973-74, I expedite the hearing of the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition under Section 33 expeditiously. In any case within six months from today. With these observations the revision petition is disposed of. The interim order granted on 22.1.1992 is vacated.