BHARTIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Tenders in respect of construction of some houses at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, having been invited by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner submitted his tender for the aforesaid work and his tender was accepted on 18.9.1992. In respect of the aforesaid contract, some disputes and differences arose between the parties and accordingly, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court seeking for filing of the arbitration agreement and for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon the aforesaid disputes arising between the parties.

(2.) .On perusal of the records of the case, it appears that prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner did not send any notice and/or request to the respondents for appointment of an arbitrator as required. In the present petition, the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority has been made a party, respondent No. 1 and the Engineer Member of the Delhi Development Authority has been made the second respondent i.e. respondent No.2. It further appears that after filing of the aforesaid petition, notice was issued by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer on 25.8.1995 invoking Clause 25 of the contract and requested the Chief Engineer of the Delhi Development Authority to appoint an arbitrator within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

(3.) .The respondents filed a reply to the aforesaid petition, contending inter alia, that the prayer for appointment of the arbitrator by the petitioner in the present petition is not in accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement and that no direction has been sought against the Chief Engineer, the person designate, under Clause 25 and, therefore, the petition is defective and not maintainable. It has been further stated that the Chief Engineer was not approached for appointment of an arbitrator and that he had never refused to appoint the arbitrator.