BHARAT LAL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the Agreement entered into between the parties.

(2.) The facts relevant for the decision of the present petition are as follows. The work for construction of Staff Quarters 20 Units TypeIII (G+3), 6 Units Type-IV (G+1), 4 Units Type-IV Special (G+1), 1 Unit Type-V, Duplex and other allied works for RPSF at Daya Basti, Delhi was awarded to the petitioner vide letter No.74- W/13/66/PTNR/WA/TCR dated 30.01.2004. An Agreement was entered into between the parties bearing Agreement No.190-W/PTNR dated 04.06.2004. The entire work was required to be completed within 18 months from the date of issue of the acceptance letter dated 30.01.2004. After the completion of the work the petitioner vide letter dated 22.02.2010 addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer, Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate, Delhi submitted 12 claims and requested for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the said claims. The Chief Administrative Officer/Construction, Northern Railway vide letter No.74-W/1/13/95/WA/SSB/Arb. dated 16.07.2010 advised the petitioner that his demand for arbitration was not tenable as he had already signed a Supplementary Agreement. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner filed the present petition for appointment of an arbitrator, preferably a Retired Engineer of CPWD to adjudicate and decide the disputes expeditiously in terms of Clause 64 of the Arbitration Agreement.

(3.) The petitioner claims that he had completed the entire work to the satisfaction of the respondents and the same was accepted by the respondents. Even the bills were duly prepared for the entire work.