B D CHAWLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to decide whether any of the disputes fall within the excepted matters or not, reference may be made to clause 63. The said clause reads: (.....) This clause can be divided into two parts. The first part states that all disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever which arise between the parties out of or in connection with the contract will be referred by the contractor to the Railway which shall give a decision within a reasonable time. The first part of cl. 63 has to be read along with cl. 64 which provides for all disputes being referred to arbitration except those which are excepted matters referred to in cl. 63. The excepted matters, which are outside the pale of cl. 64 are contained in the second part of cl. 63. The excepted matters are those which are decisions for which provisions have been made in clauses 18, 22(5), 39, 45A, 55, 55-A(5), 61(2) and 62 XIII(B) (c)(b)ofthe General conditions of contract or the decisions which are provided in any of the clauses in the said conditions of contract. The second part of cl. 63 states that such decisions shall be deemed to be excepted matters and the decisions so given are final and binding on the contractor and are outside the purview of the arbitration clause.

(2.) COMING to the various disputes which are sought to be raised in the present case, the contention of Shri Shar is that the allegations made by the petitioner are vague. It is true that some of the allegations made are vague, but one can identify the nature of the dispute which is sought to be raised.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that a no claim certificate having been given by the petitioner, the disputes cannot be referred. IT has been consistently decided by this Court that in a case where it is alleged that no claim certificate was given under coercion, and such is the allegation in the present case, then this question can be decided by the arbitrator, and not by the Court, in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the cases of R.D. Gupta v. Union of India, S. No. 193-A/77 D./9.4.79, LA. No. 1019 of 1977 in S. No. 250-A/77 D./25.5.77 and Arm Const. Co. v. Union of India, 1980. Rajdhani Law Reporter 307. Mr. Sharma has, however, drawn my attention to a Division Bench authority of Karnataka High Court reported as S.C. Konda Reddy v. Union of India, AIR 1982. Kar. 50. IT was observed in that case as follows :-