CHUNNI LAL Vs. RPG HOME FINANCE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation has fallen for consideration de novo for the second time. By Orders dated 23.7.2003, a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed by C.K. Mahajan, J. In the Order, it had been stated that the respondent had failed to file Replies and to controvert the statement of facts and allegations made in the application. However, Replies had been filed by respondent No. 1 on 24th December, 1999 to which a Rejoinder had been filed by the applicant on 8th May, 2000. These were overlooked since they had been wrongly filed by the Dealing Clerk in Part-II. The Orders dated 23.7.2003 appointing an Arbitrator came to be set aside by the Supreme Court on this short ground.

(2.) The existence of the following arbitration clause is not in dispute:

(3.) In brief, the applicant has stated that the entire payment had not been made after the Sixth Running Bill had been cleared. In response to the applicant's letter dated 25.8.1998, a Demand Draft of Rs. 9,93,256/- had been received, but a balance had been left outstanding. The applicant's reminder dated 4.5.1999 failed to provide any results and efforts of the architect remained futile. As no Arbitrator had been appointed, the applicant had filed the present application under Section 11 defining therein its claim for a sum of Rs. 26,03,445/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.