ORDER

An absolutely inequitable stand taken by the respondent (Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking) has led us to examine some fundamental questions of law. We have opened with this observation inasmuch as the respondent has challenged the award of the arbitrators made in favour of the appellant on the ground that the contract, which contained arbitration agreement, is void, because of which there is no agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration ; and so, the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to pass impugned award. Such a stand flies on the face of the respondent inasmuch as of the two arbitrators, one, namely Shri K.L. Vijh, had been appointed by the respondent itself. But as the award ultimately want in favour of the appellant, it raised the question of jurisdiction. We have no doubt in our mind that such a stand is inequitable, indeed highly inequitable. Question, however, is whether the law permits such a question to be raised.

2. The High Court accepted the contention that the contract was void inasmuch as Sections 201 and 203 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act read with bye law 3(1)(a) were violated. Dr. Singhvi, appearing for the respondent has urged that the contract bein