THERMOSPARES INDIA Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE agreement(s) between the parties, having an arbitration clause, two claims in sum of Rs. 3,36,13,692.50 raised by the appellant were referred to a Sole Arbitrator.

(2.) AS per the appellant, on November 03, 1976 and May 10, 1977, the respondent issued two Work Orders No.529/VA/103/60049 and No.07/PPN/60049 respectively on the appellant for transportation from project stores, erection, testing and commissioning of pressure parts of Units I and II of Panipat Thermal Power Plant, Panipat. Thereafter, on August 17/22, 1977 the respondent issued a third Work Order No.27/PPN/60049 on the appellant for transportation from project stores/Railway siding, pre-assembly, erection, testing and commissioning of external pipelines and auxiliaries of Units I and II of Panipat Thermal Power Plant, Panipat.

(3.) IN the rejoinder filed, the appellant denied that there was a complete accord and satisfaction of the disputes pertaining to the work orders in question. With respect to no claim certificates dated April 24, 1979, April 05, 1980 and October 21, 1981 it was pleaded that the said certificates pertained to the bills raised by the appellant with respect to execution of works which formed part of the work orders and that they do not pertain to the bills which form subject-matter of the claim petition(s), inasmuch as said bills were raised by the appellant with respect to execution of TIG Welding and extra joinery works which did not form part of the work orders. With respect to meeting dated April 25, 1979 it was pleaded that the respondent cannot arbitrarily pay an insignificant amount to the appellant in respect of extra joinery works executed by it without going into the merits of the case of appellant and that the respondent cannot arbitrarily impose the rates decided in respect of other contractor upon the appellant in respect of TIG Welding Work executed by it without going into the merits of the case of appellant. With respect to the letter dated January 24, 1983 it was pleaded that said letter was written in the context of the bills raised by the appellant pertaining to the execution of works which formed part of the work orders and not with respect to the bills which form subject-matter of the claim petition(s) i.e. extra work. With respect to the letters dated February 08, 1983 and February 18, 1983 it was pleaded that the said letters were signed by one of the partners of the appellant on account of undue harassment by respondent.