( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 33 of the arbitration Act moved by the petitioner seeking declaration that respondent No. 2 has no authority or jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator firstly because there exists no arbitration agreement between the parties and secondly there was no concluded contract and thirdly that the rights and claims in respect of the obligations of the parties are assignable under the law.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the above petition are in short as under:

THAT Victor Cable Corporation (hereinafter referred as Victor Cables), a partnership firm of four partners was carrying on its business of manufacture and sale of cables of various sizes at 802, Joshi Road, New delhi and was a firm of repute with a well equipped factory at Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh. The disputes arose between the partners after the death- of one of the partners of the said firm. One of the partners filed a suit against the other partners being Suit No. 95/80 for dissolution of the partnership firm and for accounts. In the said suit the properties of the firm were ordered to be put on sale. The petitioner company offered to purchase the assets of the said firm namely Victor Cables and the offer of the petitioner company for Rs. 60 lacs was accepted by the Court. Under the orders of the Court the petitioner company was required to clear the liabilities of the Allahabad Bank before handing over the possession of the assets of Victor Cable. The petitioner company was also obliged to clear the liabilities of Oriental Bank of commerce and United Commercial Bank.

( 3 ) IT is averred that the petitioner spent huge amounts on renovations etc. to bring the factory in running condition and therefore it had Nothing to do with the previous dissolved firm Victor Cables. Dispute is in relation of a tender enquiry issued by respondent no. 1 in pursuance of which Victor Cables vide its letter dated 2 1/09/1978 offered to supply various quantities of cables of different sizes. Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the said offer as proposed by Victor Cables was to the following effect;- clause-13

"we do not agree to arbitration clause and in case of any dispute, the law of the land shall prevail and shall be subject to Delhi jurisdiction. "

( 4 ) HOWEVER when the final agreement was sent by respondent No. 1, clause 12 of the terms and conditions provided the settlement of disputes by [way of arbitration. Letter of acceptance and the terms and conditions were duly acknowledged and accepted by the Victor Cables vide letter dated 2 1/11/1978. Records of Victor cables showed that the Victor Cables had failed to make the supply to respondent no. 1 on the basis of the alleged contract except small quantity of 33. However respondent no. 1 addressed to the Chairman of the Victor Cables unilaterally asking him to either enter into reference himself or nominate somebody to settle the disputes of Victor Cables. The Chairman appointed Shri R. K. Tandon, chief Zonal Engineer, UP State Electricity Board i. e. the, respondent no. 2 as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. The entrance of the reference by the said Arbitrator has been now challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:-

1) That the petitioner company is only the purchaser of the assets and liabilities of the Victor cables. 2) That in the sale order there is no privity of contract between the pitioner and respondent no. 1 so far as arbitration clause is concerned. 3) That the reference is" unilateral as the petitioner company never joined the same and, therefore, initiation of proceedings by respondent no. 2 are illegal and without Jurisdiction. 4) That there is no concluded contract between the victor Cables and respondent no 1 as the offer of the former specifically stated that they did not agree to the arbitration clause. 5) That Victor Cables of which the petitioner is the proprietor is not a legal entity. Mere purchase of the fa