Jagdish Chandra ( 1 ) THE petitioner M/s. Suratgarh Goods Handling Shramik Theka Sahakari Samiti Limited has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the respondents-UOI through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for referring the disputes between the parties to the sole arbitration of the General Manager of the Railway Administration concerned as per the arbitration clause being Clause No. 31 of the contract between the parties which was for the purpose of performing of the work of parterages of goods (loading, unloading and otherwise handling the goods) at Suratgarh/ty. This contract was dated 7-5-1981 and was deemed to have come into force with effect from 27-4-1981 and was to remain in force for a period of three years ending 26-4-1984 unless otherwise determined under any provision of this contract. Certain disputes are alleged to have cropped up between the parties and it is alleged that notwithstanding all efforts of the petitioner to resolve the same, those disputes are still subsisting for which reason the petitioner has been le t with on alternative but to invoke the aforesaid arbitration clause of the agreement. These disputes have been set out as Claims Nos. 1 to 14 in para 5 of the petition. ( 2 ) THIS petition has been resisted by the respondent-UOl and preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that this Court at Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case inasmuch as the tenders were invited at Bikaner and the contract was executed between the parties at Bikaner and the petitioner had already given a "no demand certificate" dated 21-7-1982 and was, thus, estopped from raising any dispute and claiming arbitration, and, in any case, most of the claims set out in the petition are excepted matters and were, thus, not referrable to arbitration. ( 3 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether this Court at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to try this case ? (2) Whether the petitioner is estopped from claiming arbitration in view of no claim certificate dated 21-7-1982 given by the petitioner to the respondent ? (3) Whether any of the claims mentioned in the petition fall within "excepted matter" as alleged in preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement ? (4) Relief. (2) Whether the petitioner is estopped from claiming arbitration in view of no claim certificate dated 21-7-1982 given by the petitioner to the respondent ? (3) Whether any of the claims mentioned in the petition fall within "excepted matter" as alleged in preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement ? (4) Relief. ( 4 ) THE controversy posed by these issues was ordered to be resolved upon affidavits. One affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the petitioner but no counter-affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the respondent despite opportunities having been given for that purpose. ( 5 ) ISSUE No. 1 This issue was not pressed at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent and so this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner that this Court at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. ( 6 ) ISSUE No. 2 Even this issue was not pressed at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent and so it is held that the petitioner is not estopped from claiming arbitration in view of "no claim certificate" dated 21-7-1982 given by the petitioner to the respondent and this issue is decided accordingly against the respondent. ( 7 ) ISSUE No. 3 Certain claims made by the petitioner and set out in the petition for reference to arbitration have been resisted by the respondent-UOl on the ground that the same cannot be referred to arbitration for the reason that the same fall within the excepted matters in the contract between the parties. This question shall be considered separately in respect of the various claims in regard to which this objection had been taken by the respondent. ( 8 ) CLAIM No 1 This is a claim for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,000 approximately on account of coal sweeping alleging that the department notwithstanding getting the work of coal sweeping performed by the petitioner from ground to meter gauge wagons did not make any payment in respect of the same. ( 9 ) CLAUSE 31 of the contract between the parties is the arbitration clause and it provides as follows : "clause No. 31. General Manager s decision to be final in case of dispute. ( 9 ) CLAUSE 31 of the contract between the parties is the arbitration clause and it provides as follows : "clause No. 31. General Manager s decision to be final in case of dispute. If any dispute, difference or question shall arise between the Railway Administration and the Contractor as to the respective rights, duties and obligatihns of the parties hereto or as to the construction or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement or as to its application (except the decision whereof is herein expressly provided for) then the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the General Manager or of the person so appointed shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. " ( 10 ) THE contract provides in its schedule of rates the goods meant for loading or unloading for which the contract was entered into between the parties, and coal is one of those goods in respect of which loading or unloading was to be done by the petitioner for the respondent. Cl. 2 (2) (iii) (a) of the contract provides as follows : "the following services will be rendered by the Contractor free of charges without any remuneration : (a) The proper cleaning of the interiors of all the wagons/vans by the Contractor before commencing loading and after completing unloading operations including wagons/vans handled by owners of goods. The contractor shall deposit ail refuse, swept out of wagons/vans in dust bins or at places in the station, yard meant for the purpose. The sweepings, dust waste material rubbish, etc. , swept out of the wagons must not be thrown on the tracks. If any sweepings, dust or waste material rubbish, etc. , fall on the tracks during the process of transhipment of goods loanding and unloading of goods, the Contractor will clear the track and sweepings, dust, waste material, rubbish, etc. , thus collected shall be deposited by them in the dust bin or at places in the station, yards earmarked for the purpose. , fall on the tracks during the process of transhipment of goods loanding and unloading of goods, the Contractor will clear the track and sweepings, dust, waste material, rubbish, etc. , thus collected shall be deposited by them in the dust bin or at places in the station, yards earmarked for the purpose. " ( 11 ) COAL being one of the goods meant for loading or unloading by the petitioner/contractor for the respondent, if the same falls on the tracks during the process of transhipment of goods or loading or unloading of goods the contractor shall clear andspeeping off the same and deposit it in the dustbin or at places in the station, yards earmarked for the purpose, free of charges and without any remuneration. When no remuneration are claimable under the contract by the petitioner/contractor from the respondent for such work, there cannot exists any dispute for the payment of charges/remuneration in respect thereof and so obviously Claim No. 1 could not arise and forms no dispute and is, thus, necessarily a matter excepted from arbitration. ( 12 ) CLAIM No. 3 This claim is for the recovery of Rs. 7,000 approximately on account of disallowances. It is urged in the petition that the department has made disallowances against M. G. T. R. Vans through the Accounts Officers which action of the department was arbitrary, unilateral and against the provision of agreement. Against this the respondent has asserted that a sum of Rs. 2,368 00 P. has correctly been allowed and not Rs. 7,000 as alleged by the petitioner and that the details of disallowances were supplied to the contractor after checking the bills from time to time and had it been objectionable this should have been protested within three months and that furthermore the claim is time barred in terms of Clause (6) of the agreement as the supplementary bills in this connection were never received and, thus, this claim was an excepted matter . Clause No. 6 of the agreement does provide for time limitation of three months within which claims have to be made. This claim pertains to disallowances and it would depend upon the construction of the true meaning of Clause No. 6 of the agreement whether such a claim of disallowances falls thereunder or not. Clause No. 6 of the agreement does provide for time limitation of three months within which claims have to be made. This claim pertains to disallowances and it would depend upon the construction of the true meaning of Clause No. 6 of the agreement whether such a claim of disallowances falls thereunder or not. Under the arbitration clause any dispute or question relating to the construction or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of the contract or as to its application shall have to be decided by the arbitrator and so the scope of arbitration on this claim cannot be determined by the Court and has to be left to the arbitrator for adjudication. ( 13 ) CLAIM No. 9 This pertains to the claim of Rs. 4,000 approximately on account of revised rates asserting that from 1-5-1982 to 20-6-1982 rates were revised but the department did not make the payment. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the question of revision of rates could not arise because the petitioner had already tendered resignation before completion of one year from the date of the agreement and Clause 4 (ii) of the agreement provided for the consideration for the revision of rates only after the expiry of one year of the contract. Clause No. 4 (ii) does provide for the revision of rates after every 12 months. The contention raised by the respondent in its written statement regarding this claim has been controverted in the rejoinder and so evidence would be required on the questions of fact involved regarding the alleged resignation of the petitioner or whether the department had revised the rates or not from 1-5-1982 to 20-6-1982 as asserted by the petitioner. Moreover, Clause 4 (ii) of the contract providing for the review of rates after every 12 months would require construction and interpretation as to whether the rates could be revised by the department only after the expiry of 12 months or even prior thereto. Under these circumstances, it is for the arbitrator to decide this matter and this claim cannot be said to be an expected matter outright. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent conceded at the Bar that no other claim fell within the scope of excepted matters under the contract. Under these circumstances, it is for the arbitrator to decide this matter and this claim cannot be said to be an expected matter outright. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent conceded at the Bar that no other claim fell within the scope of excepted matters under the contract. This issue is decided according to the extent indicated above partly in favour of the respondent only in respect of Claim No. 1 and partly in respect of the petitioner in respect of the remaining claims. ( 15 ) ISSUE No. 4 (Relief) Claim No. 13 pertains to interest and the petitioner claims interest at the rates of 20 per cent as pendente lite and future inasmuch as the department has not paid the amounts due to the petitioner and thereby the petitioner could not make use of those amounts in its business. ( 16 ) CLAIM No. 14 pertains to a sum of Rs. 5,000 which according to the petitioner would be the cost of arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator. Even though these two claims cannot be called disputes between the parties as at present, the same would necessarily figure before the arbitrator who, in his discretion, may award the same to the petitioner at the rate and to the extent as may be considered reasonable by him. ( 17 ) IN view of my above findings, this petition is expected in part and it is directed that the arbitration agreement be filed in Court. Claim Nos. 2 to 12 set out in para 5 of the petition are referred for decision to arbitration as per arbitration clause being clause No. 31 of the contract between the parties If the General Manager does not himself act as the sole arbitrator, he shall appoint a sole arbitrator in his place within one month from today.