Law: First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 3

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), First Sched, Art. 3 read with S. 3-Award-Arbitrator called upon to act on 22-6-66, but not entering on reference till 18-10-66-Arbitrator, held, failed to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on reference for purposes of making an award within prescribed period of four months and therefore liable to be removed. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1960), SS. 11 & 39-Arbitrator, removal of-Appeal-Order removing arbitrator passed under S. 11-Not appealable-Appeal however converted into revision in interest of justice in circumstances of case. Dates of hearing: 19th, 20th and 21st March 1969.   JUDGMENT A. S. CHOWDHURY, J.----This appeal and the Civil Revision Case No. 210 of 1968 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this, judgment. This appeal is at the instance of defendant No. 1 Province of East Pakistan and directed against the judgment and decree passed by Mr. A. K. Faizuddin Ahmad, Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, in Title Suit No. 82 of 1966, on 12-9-67. The plaintiff's case, briefly stated, is that he was appointed a contractor for earth filling work at Kamalapur Railway Station in pursuance of an agreement entered between him and the defendant No. 1. It is claimed that the plaintiff was executing his work properly and, in fact, placed 7,49,591 cft. of earth on the site, only to be surprised by an abrupt letter dated 7-3-66, cancel ling the contract. He further stated that he, however, continued with his work until 12th March and placed a further quantity of earth at a huge cost. It is admitted by him that he received an amount of Rs. 51,041 under four running account bills. He thereafter claimed that he was to be paid for the work already done a sum of Rs. 29,232 and he also demanded the refund of Rs. 2,400 deposited as earnest money. Abrupt cancellation of the contract entailed damages and he therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 10,400. It is further asserted that in pursuance of the agreement for arbitration the plaintiff called upon the Arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration but as he did not take any step whatsoever, the plaintiff prayed for his removal. The suit was contested by the defendants…