S K BUILDER Vs. HINDU COLLEGE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed alleging that Mange Ram is the proprietor of petitioner. Respondent No.1 floated tender for construction of 4 flats for teaching staff and 2 flats for non-teaching staff. Tender documents were issued to the petitioner on payment of Rs.100/- vide receipt No. 1428 dated 10/08/1990.Thereafter petitioner submitted tender on item rate basis and deposited Rs. 10.000/-.towards earnest money with respondent No. 1. However, tenders were not opened. It is further alleged that in continuation of said tender, the respondent No. 1 invited lumpsum offer for the work. The petitioner submitted lumpsum offer of Rs. 11,98,666/- on 11/01/1991 on the basis of drawings supplied by M/s. Kapoor & Associates, architect of respondent No. 1. After negotiations, contract was finalized for a total sum of Rs. 11.80 lakhs and an agreement was formally signed on 27/02/1991. Earnest money deposited along with Tender documents on 30/08/1990 by the petitioner was adjusted towards the contract agreement executed on 27/02/1991 by respondent No.1. It is asserted that terms and conditions of Tender documents to be opened on 30/08/1990, remained applicable to the parties. It is further alleged that respondent No.1 rescinded the contract vide its letter dated 26/02/1992. Details of disputes/claims of the petitioner have been set out in Para 12 of the petition. It is alleged that clause No.50 of General Conditions of Tender documents contains arbitration clause. Respondent No. 1 neither paid the amount due to the petitioner nor referred the disputes / claims to arbitration in terms of said arbitration clause. It was prayed that preferably Vice-Chancellor, respondent No. 2 be appointed as sole arbitrator and, in the alternative, an Engineer be appointed to adjudicate the claims of petitioner.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 contested the petition by filing reply. It is not denied that pursuant to advertisement dated 1/08/1990, tenders were invited for construction of 4 flats for teaching staff and 2 flats for non-teaching staff and petitioner was supplied Tender documents on payment of Rs. 100/- vide receipt No. 1428 dated 10/08/1990 as alleged. Last date for submission of tender and deposit of earnest money was 30/08/1990. It is stated that petitioner neither submitted any tender nor deposited Rs. 10,000/- by way of earnest money. It is claimed that after rejecting the tenders received pursuant to advertisement dated 1/08/1990, answering respondent on 7/01/1991 invited lumpsum offer for the work. The petitioner submitted offer for Rs. 11,98,666/- on 11/01/1991 and it was allotted work on the terms and conditions incorporated in agreement dated 27/02/1991. This agreement does not contain any arbitration clause. It is asserted that terms and conditions of lumpsum tender were different from the tender advertised on 1/08/1990. Present petition seeking reference of certain claims to arbitration is not legally maintainable. It is denied that the amount claimed or any other amount is payable by answering respondent to the petitioner.

(3.) I heard Ms. Anusuya Salwan for petitioner and Sh. Anurag Mathur for respondent No.1.