MEHTA AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, M/s. Metha & Company, is a registered partnership firm carrying on business as contractors and builders at Jullundur City. It entered into a contract with the Union of India for construction of office blocks in connection with the provision of a diesel shed at Ludhiana, on 3rd December, 1977, after its tender dated 4th August 1977 for the said work was accepted by the respondent. THE construction work was to start on 22nd August, 1977, and was to be completed on 21st February, 1979, but for certain reasons it could not be completed in time Ultimately it was completed on 3!st March, 1980. THE respondent had agreed to the extension of time for completion of the work. For the due performance of the contract the petitioner initially deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 . THEreafter, it is alleged that a further amount of Rs. 1,20,020 odd was deducted from the running bills of the petitioner towards the security. THE agreement entered into between the parties on 3rd December, 1977, provided for the settlement of disputes arising out of the contract between them by arbitration.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that for the fulfilment of the contract the department was to supply material and the designs which it had failed to do so in time. Further, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent failed to finalise its final bill for almost a year and a half after the completion of the contract and while 'finalising the bill a number of genuine claims were excluded from the same. IT is averred that after making illegal deductions from the bill, the respondent did not pay the amount which was found by it to be due to the petitioner unless the petitioner signed a "no claim certificate". The contention of the petitioner is that "no claim certificate" was signed under protest. As numerous genuine claims were with held by the respondent, it is the case of the petitioner, it had to invoke the arbitration clause for settlement of the disputes.

(3.) ISSUE No. 1 is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. ISSUE No. 2: