H K BAGCHI Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit originates on a petition under Section 20 of theArbitration Act, 1940. According to the petitioner, in response to tender No.AGM(SP)MM-15/89 dated 23.8.1989 for trench, laying of cables and other connected jobs for Mahanagar Telehphone Nigam Limited, Delhi (hereinafter calledthe MTNL, for short), the petitioner submitted his tender. It was accepted by therespondent. The contract bearing the same number as the tender was executedbetween the parties on 1.12.89. The period of contract having expired, it wasextended from time to time upto 28.2.91,30.4.91 and 31.5.91. Thereafter there wasno extension upto 31.7.91. The petitioner executed the works under the workorders issued by the respondent upto 31.7.91. Consequent to the measurementmade of the works executed upto 31.7.91 the petitioner submitted his Bills to thetune of Rs.18,85,535.00 but the respondents made a huge deduction of Rs.11,04,430.00 in violation of the terms of the contract. The petitioner sought for thefollowing disputes to be referred to arbitration, in accordance with the arbitrationclause, (Clause No.33 of the Contract dated 1.12.89) :-

(2.) THE arbitration clause i.e. Clause No. 33 provides for any question disputeor differences arising out of the contract or in connection therewith to be referredto an Arbitrator appointed by the Chief General Manager of MTNL.