Central Warehousing Corporation vs Batra Contractors And Anr.
1991 Latest Caselaw 375 Del

JUDGMENT

M.C. Jain, C.J.

(1) This appeal arises from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Suit no. 975-A/90 dated 16th August, 1990 whereby the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and the subject disputes were referred to arbitration in terms of arbitration agreement between the parties. The learned Judge also directed the Managing Director of the appellant Corporation to appoint the Arbitrator within 4 weeks who shall give his Award in accordance with law.

(2) We have heard Shri Manvendra Verma, counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Singh, counsel for the respondents.

(3) The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the four disputes can be referred to arbitration. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in respect of dispute No. 1 .clause 10C of the Agreement is attracted or not would be examined by the Arbitrator. In respect of the other three disputes as well, the learned Judge also expressed, as to whether the claims are beyond the contract would be examined by the Arbitrator. The first claim relates to increase in the rate of labour and material for Rs. 16,70,116.00 . The second claim of Rs.75,000.00 is on account of forfeiture of security deposit and earnest money. The third claim for Rs. l,60,000/¯ is on account of extra expenditure incurred on establishment and the last claim is for Rs. 6,75,000.00 on account of loss of profit.

(4) Counsel fur the appellant submitted that clause 25 of the Arbitration Agreement makes an exception of the matters which are provided in the agreement, which matters cannot be referred to arbitration. Clause 25 begins with the words, "Except where otherwise provided in the contract". We have not been referred to any clause which excepts the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator on questions in disputes arising under the contract. Unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is barred by any provision in the contract, whatever is embraced by clause 25 would be referrable to arbitration. That apart, it is open to the appellant to raise the question before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator would examine the question as to whether there is any exception provided under the contract itself.

(5) In our opinion, the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.