HARISH KUMAR SIKKA Vs. UNION GOVT. OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This is an application under Sec. 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for appointment of an arbitrator. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, submitted that the claims submitted by the petitioner are not arbitrable and, therefore, there is no question of appointment of an arbitrator. He straightway referred to para 7 (vi) of the petition where the losses/claims are mentioned. The losses/claims read as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_424_LAWS(DLH)9_2007(10).html</FRM>

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that insofar as Claim (A) is concerned, the same was the subject matter of an arbitration and an award has also been made to the extent of Rs. 39,123.00 in favour of the petitioner and the respondent has also paid the said amount. Insofar as Claims (B) to (F) are concerned, he submitted that these are not within the scope of arbitration in terms of the general conditions of the contract read with the special conditions of the contract between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that these claims were arbitrable and, therefore, an arbitrator ought to be appointed.

(3.) Claim (B) relates to losses due to increased work done beyond the prescribed limit of variation. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on clause 42 (2) (i) of the General Conditions of Contract which reads as under:-