NARASIMHASWAMI CONSTRUCTIONS, MAHESHWAR NIWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996'), the petitioner has made a request for appointment of Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide all its disputes with the respondents, arising out of, and relating to the Contract Agreement No.CAO/CN/BNC/73104/A/100/II/2010 dated 12.02.2010.

(2.) Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the respondent No.2, the Chief Administrative Officer (Constructions), South Western Railway, Bengaluru, invited offers for the works titled "Arsiker-Birur patch doubling Devanur yard re-modelling including formation, ballast, track linking, regarding construction of station building, FOB, Platform, PF shelters and other miscellaneous works" through tender notice No.CAO/CN/BNC/037/09 dated 19.06.2009. The petitioner submitted its tender on 23.07.2009 and after negotiations, the respondent No.3 conveyed acceptance through the Letter of Acceptance bearing No.W.496/15AKRB/07 dated 02.09.2009. In terms of the Acceptance Letter, the total value of the work was Rs.5,47,14,765/- and the same was to be completed within six months i.e., on or before 01.03.2010. Later, an Agreement bearing No.CAO/CN/ BNC/73104/A/100/11 dated 12.02.2010 was executed with the General Conditions of Contract ('GCC') of the Engineering Department of South Western Railway and the Special Conditions and Specifications of Contract governing the contract. With reference to the copy of the GCC, the petitioner has pointed out that such conditions also provide the dispute resolution mechanism and for reference to arbitration. Clauses 63 and 64 of GCC have been referred in that regard.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that it had mobilized man and machinery to execute the work within the time specified, but there had been delay caused due to the protests by the farmers; and it was revealed that the tender had been called without ensuring completion of land acquisition process. Further, according to the petitioner, the detailed drawings and plans were approved long after awarding the work and then, the respondents put extreme pressure to take up additional earthwork beyond the quantity in the agreement; and they also took a long time in processing variation statement, which resulted in blockage of a sum of Rs.90 lakhs.