AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is fully covered by the decision of the full bench in Ved Prakash Mithal v. Union of India. (Suit No. 625-A of 1982) (1 ). In that suit we have, pronounced the order today.

( 2 ) THE learned Judge in the impunged order followed the decision of the division bench in Kishan Chand v. Union of India. ILR (1974) II Delhi 673. Following Kishan Chand) he held that the petition of the contractor under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not legally maintainable and that court can neither appoint an arbitrator itself nor compel the Chief Engineer to make such an appointment. On this view he dismissed the petition.

( 3 ) IN Ved Prakash Mithal a full bench has overruled the decision in Kishan Chand v. Union of India (supra ). The full beach has held that the court has the power to make the appointment if the Chief Engineer refuses to make.

( 4 ) IN Kishan Chand the division bench held that the court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act has no power to appoint an arbitrator under clause 25 of the contract. The appointment must be had from the Chief Engineer, the person designated in the arbitration clause. This, in their view. was an

"insuperable

Click Here to Read the rest of this document