KULJIT SINGH Vs. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kuljit Singh and Co. has filed present application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') for appointment of an Arbitrator as according to it, respondent failed to appoint Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the contract dated 6. 5. 1996.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the case of the petitioner is that it is carrying on business under the name and style of Kuljit Singh and Co. The State of Punjab had awarded M/s Triveni Structural Limited (TSL) a contract for the work of "concreting behind gate control and juncture reach including transition zone pen stock liners and plug of tunnels PI and P2 in the Ranjit Sagar Dam (RSD) Project. M/s. Triveni Structural Limited awarded civil works of the said contract to Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. , the respondent herein. After inviting tenders for work of concreting behind gate Control and junction reach including transition zone of tunnels P1 and P2, of Ranjit Sagar dam at Shahpurkhandi near Pathankot, Punjab, respondent awarded this work to the petitioner vide letter No. DL1/con/tec/226/66 dated 6. 5. 1996 for a sum of Rs. 2,40,60,000/ -. As required petitioner issued a performance bank guarantee of Rs. 24,06,000/- and an indemnity bond of Rs. 3 crores in favour of respondent against Steel which was to be issued free of costs by the Ranjit Sagar Project authorities. Petitioner's work was limited to placement of reinforcement and concrete which was supplied by RSD which was under the domain of the State of Punjab. This placement was to be under the supervision and direction of the RSD authorities.

(3.) PETITIONER could not start work in time as according to it, respondent failed to make site available and the work could not be completed in the stipulated time and the completion period was extended from time to time. Petitioner completed all its work by end of November, 1998 but was asked to do some extra work which was not within the scope of work assigned to it. Respondent was informed vide letters dated 30. 11. 1998 and 31. 12. 1998 by the petitioner that the entire work had been completed and requested for releasing the bank guarantee, indemnity bond and other dues.