SURAJ BHAN GOEL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This is an application under Sectiuuon 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, requiring respondent No.1 to file original arbitration agreement and appointment of the arbitrator and reference of the dispute with regard to the delay in completion of work narratted in paragraph 2.

(2.) IN the petition, it has been the say of the petitioner that the petitioner, a partnership firm, M/s. Suraj Bhan Goel, is a government contractor and engineer having its office at WZ-3, Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Respondent No.1/DDA invited tender rates for the work of M/O Central Store with Railway siding facilities at G.T.K. Road SH: A/R and M/O Roads. That the petitioner was given the contract for the said work. That the arbitrator was appointed and the parties filed their statements before the arbitrator and that the said proceedings are in progress. That on 29.6.1992, the Director(MM)/SE(Store) of respondent/DDA served a show cause notice No.EE(P)/D- IV/Store/SD-I/F.1(14)87/644 dated 29.6.1992 on the petitioner under clause 2 of the contract agreement informing the petitioner that under clause 2 of the agreement, the petitioner has rendered itself liable to pay compensation. That the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice dated 13.7.1992. Director(MM)/SE of respondent No.1/DDA, vide its letter No. No.EE(P)/C- IV/Store/SD-I/F.1(14)87/DDA/827 dated 14.8.1992 has imposed levy of compensation amounting to Rs.1,37,598.00 i.e. 10% on the estimated amount of Rs.13,75,980.00 under clause 2 of the contract agreement. That respondent No.1, in the past did not raise the issue of delay and compensation. That the arbitration agreement provides for reference of the disputes to the arbitrator. That for the dispute with regard to the delay in completion of the work is the dispute within the meaning of arbitration clause and is to be adjudicated upon by the arbitrator as to who was responsible for causing delay in completion of work. On these allegations, the petitioner prays for relief, aforestated. 2.Respondent No.1/DDA filed reply to the suit contending that the suit in the present form is not maintainable. That the levy of compensation under clause 2 of the agreement is not arbitrable, and therefore, the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, is not maintainable. It is denied that respondent is in any way responsible for the delay in execution of work by the petitioner and that it is the petitioner/contractor who is responsible for delay. 3.Following issues have been framed on April 22, 1994 :-