The court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement, which vested the power to nominate an arbitrator exclusively in the Managing Director or the administrative head of the Corporation, foreclosed arbitration in the matter.

D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the order dt. 5-2-1983 of the trial Court rejecting the petition of the plaintiff dt. 5-2-1982 seeking the filing of the agreement between them under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, and referring the dispute between the parties to an arbitrator in terms of S.20 of the said Act.

2. The trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff on the ground that the provisions of S.20 of the Act were inapplicable.

3. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions addressed at the Bar, it would be apt to notice at this stage the relevant provisions of Section 8 and S.20 of the Act :

"8. (1) In any of the following cases - (a) where an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to one or more arbitrators to be appointed by consent of the parties, and all the parties do not after differences have arisen, concur in the appointment or appointments; or

(b) if any appointed arbitrator or umpire neglects or refuses to act, or is incapable of acting, or dies, and the arbitration agreement does not show that it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied and the parties or the arbitrators, as the case may be, do not supply the vacancy; or

(c) where the parties or the arbitrators are required to appoint an umpire and do not appoint him; any party may serve the other parties or the arbitrators, as the case may be, with a written notice to concur in the appointment or appointments or in supplying the vacancy.

(2) If the appointment is not made within fifteen clear days after the service of the said notice, the Court may, on the application of the party who gave the notice and after giving the other parties an opportunity of being heard, appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be, who shall have like power to act in the reference and to make an award as if he or they had been appointed by consent of all parties. * * * * * * *

20. (1) Where any persons have entered into an arbitration agreement before the institution of any suit with respect to the subject-matter of the agreement or any part of it, and where a difference has arisen to which the agreement applies they or any of them, instead of proceeding under Chap. II, may apply to a Court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in Court.

(2) The application shall be in writing and shall be numbered and registered as a suit between one or more of the parties interested or claiming to be interested as plaintiff or plaintiffs and the remainder as defendant or defendants, if the application has been presented by all the parties, or, if otherwise between the applicant or plaintiff and the other parties as defendants.

(3) On such application being made, the Court shall direct notice thereof to be given to all parties to the agreement other than the applicants, requiring them to show cause within the time specified in the notice why the agreement should not be filed.

(4) Where no sufficient cause is shown, the Court shall order the agreement to be filed and shall make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties, whether in the agreement or otherwise, or, where the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, to an arbitrator appointed by the Court.

(5) Thereafter the arbitration shall proceed in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the other provisions of this Act so far as they can be made applicable."

Mr. R.S. Mongia, counsel for the appellant, on the strength of the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Ved Parkash Mithal V/s. Union of India, AIR 1984 Delhi 325, canvassed that the Court erred in holding that the provisions of Sub-Sec. (4) of S.20 of the Act were not attracted to the facts of the present case and that the Court was not competent to order the filing of the agreement and make a reference of the dispute to the arbitrato