9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and C.M. Patel for the Appellant. Vijay Hansaria, S. Borthakur and M.S. Sushma Sharma for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Mohapatra, J. - Leave granted. 2. All these appeals are inter-linked with each other. The parties are the same and common questions arising from the same set of facts are involved in all these cases which were disposed of by the High Court of Rajasthan by a common judgment. While SLP (C) Nos. 10917-10918 of 1999 are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 283 of 1992 and 825 of 1994 filed under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, SLP (C) Nos. 9170-9172 of 1999 are directed against Civil Review Petition Nos. 117 of 1997 and 118 of 1997 arising from the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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, PWD 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. 5. The question that arises for consideration is who is to act as arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes raised by the parties in the case; whether it is the former Additional Chief Engineer appointed by the Court or the former Executive Engineer as suggested by Tilam Sangh. The High Court has taken the view that the arbitrator appointed by the lower court, in compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 stated by the 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 30-7-1999. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submis-sions 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. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
