C. L. Chaadhry ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act by Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. seeking direction to the respondent to file the arbitration agreement in court and for reference of the disputes for arbitration. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 entered into a rate contract with the petitioner for supply of cement to all the Government and quasi public bodies against supply orders placed by them from time to time. Clause 8 of the said contract provides that sales tax if legally leviable, would be paid in addition to the price mentioned in clause 4 of the rate contract. The contract also contains arbitration clause which provides that any dispute or differences arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an officer of the Ministry of Law, appointed to be the arbitrator by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals. It is the case of the petitioner that the rate contract was renewed from time to time on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner was informed by respondent. No. 2 by letter dated 2-4-70 that the question whether sales tax was payable on the element of freight was under examination and requested the petitioner not to claim sales tax on the freight with effect from 1-12-1969. It was agreed to by the petitioner. The petitioner despatched cement to the purchasers in terms of the rate contract. Clause 8 in respect of the sales tax was amended by the respondent in April, 1973. On the basis of the aforesaid amendment the petitioner continued to supply various quantities of cement to Government organisations. ( 2 ) VIDE letter dated 15-7-76 respondent No. 2 made a proposal to amend clause 8 so as to provide sales tax on railway freight on cement was not payable to the producer with effect from the date of issue of that letter. The petitioner did not accept the proposal as contained in the letter dated 15-7-76 Rather the petitioner expressly stipulated in their bills that the petitioner reserve its right to claim sales lax on freight if the same was claimed by the sales tax authority. It is alleged that the petitioner was asse?sed to tax on the element of freight and tax was demanded by the sales tax authority. It is alleged that the petitioner was asse?sed to tax on the element of freight and tax was demanded by the sales tax authority. The order of assessment was challenged in the Supreme Court which ultimately decided that the amount of freight formed part of the sale price and was included in the turnover of the assessee. The petitioner served a notice on the respondent for payment of sales tax on the element of freight for the period 1-12-1969 to 28-8-78 but to no results. It is further stated that by notice dated 5-2-1987, the petitioner called upon the respondent to pay Rs. 2,62,003 33 with interest, the amount paid by the petitioner. The petitioner also invoked the arbitration clause but without any result. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the following disputes have arisen between the parties, which are referable for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause. (I) Whether the respondents are liable to pay to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 2,62,033/ being the interest paid by the petitioner to the sales tax authorities for the sales on freight relating to the supplies made under and in terms of the rate contract. (ii) Is the respondent liable to pay to the petitioner interest on the petitioner interest on the said amount of Rs. 2,62,033 if so, from which date and at what rate ? (iii) Is the respondent liable to pay to the petitioner the litigation and other expenses incurred by the petitioner in challenging the assessment orders of the sales tax authorities and the demands raised. If so, what amount ? ( 4 ) THAT under these circumstances the petitioner claims that the respondent be directed to file the arbitration agreement in court and the disputes and differences be referred for arbitration. Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 were served for 10-5-88 but none appeared before the Deputy Registrar on that date and the matter was listed before the court on 2-8-88 for appropriate directions. On that date Mr. Watwani appeared for the respondent and sought time to file reply to the petition. He was allowed to file reply within four weeks. The matter was directed to be listed before the Deputy Registrar on llth October, 1988. On llth October, 1988, none appeared on behalf of the respondent before the Deputy Registrar. Reply has also not been filed. Watwani appeared for the respondent and sought time to file reply to the petition. He was allowed to file reply within four weeks. The matter was directed to be listed before the Deputy Registrar on llth October, 1988. On llth October, 1988, none appeared on behalf of the respondent before the Deputy Registrar. Reply has also not been filed. In my opinion, this is a fit case for having recourse to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly I proceed under that provision and pronounce the judgment against the respondent. As a result, the petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to file the original arbitration agreement in court. The Director-General of Supplies and Disposals is directed to appoint an arbitrator within two months of the date of receipt of this order and refer the disputes mentioned in para 25 of the petition for adjudication. The Arbitrator shall make the award within four months from the date of his entering upon the reference. The petition is disposed of.