D.R. Khanna, J.
(1) These are 2 petitions moved u/s 20 of Arbitration Act for getting disputes under contracts no. 41 dt. 13.8.73 & no. 69 dt. 11.12.72, referred to arbitration. According to petitioner it duly executed the contracts but several of its claims have not been paid for nor finally settled. There are said to be differences between parties on those claims.
(2) From the side of the respondents, it has been asserted that several of the disputes raised are excepted matters covered by Clause-63 of the General Conditions of Contracts, Regulations and Instructions applicable to such contracts. Such excepted matters, it is urged, were determinable by the engineer or other officers attending to the contracts on behalf of the Railways. It is pleaded that such matters cannot be referred to arbitration.
(3) As these cases have now come up for hearing, reference has been made from the side of the petitioner to a circular issued by the office of the Chief Engineer of the No thern Railway in which a sort of direction has been issued to the effect that it is for the Railways to convince Arbitrators that the procedure prescribed in Clause-45 of the General Conditions of the Contract have been followed. Thereafter it is for the Arbitrators to decide whether such assertions by the Railways are correct or not.
(5) Even otherwise it would appear that the determination of the question whether the claims and disputes raised by the petitioner fall under the contracts in dispute or not can adequately be gone into by the arbitrators, of any other law relating to the contempt of courts. He submits that under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India there is no limitation for taking proceedings in contempt. That Article it appears applies to the contempt of the High Court itself, in the instant case before me the alleged contempt is of the Rent Control Tribunal before whom the tenant gave the undertaking. Moreover it seems to me that Section 22 of the Contempt of Courts Act docs not control Section 20 of the said Act. In Dr. P. L. Jauhar v. State of Rajaslhan, , TV. V.nkal- aramanappa v. D. K. Naikar ami another, : AIR1978Kant57 and Dineshhhai A Parikh v. Kripalu Co-op. H. Society AIR. 1980. GUI. 194, it has been held that S. 20. is a complete bar for initiating contempt proceeding after expiry of one year.