KHEM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition undersection 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, case of the petitioner is that he entered into a contract with the respondent for execution of work of "Extension of Ranhela Bridge at RD 30825 - Supplementary Drain/Bridge" of the contract value of Rs. 15,02,221.00 and an agreement bearing No. EE/SDD V/2/1990-91 was executed. It is alleged that in respect of the following claims disputes have arisen between the parties : Claim No. 1: Rs. 1.25 lakhs on a/c of balance payment due towards work executed but not paid. Claim No. 2: Rs. 3.55 lakhs on a/c of payment due u/clause 10-CC of the contract towards rise in wages of labour and price of material as well as POL, etc. Claim No. 3 : Refund of Security Deposit of Rs. 1 lakh. Claim No. 4: Damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. Claim No. 5 : Interest @ 18% per annum on the amount due from the defendants till the date of recovery of payment thereof whichever is earlier. Claims No. 6 : Rs. 20,000.00 being cost of these proceedings. Claims No. 7 : Rs. 75,000.00 on a/c of excavation of Toe wall and allied operations.

(2.) It is further stated that the Petitioner while invoking the provision of the aforesaid agreement by the letter dated October 31,1994 requested respondent No. 2 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the said claims but no Arbitrator has yet been appointed by him. It was prayed that respondents be directed to file the original arbitration agreement in Court and thereafter respondent No. 2 to make appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitrator agreement for adjudications of the claims as noted in para 6 of the petition.

(3.) Respondents have contested the petition by filing a joint written statement. It is not denied that the petitioner was awarded the work of "Extension of Ranhela Bridge at RD 30825 Supplementary Drain/Bridge" and an agreement containing arbitration clause was entered into between the parties, as alleged. It is further not denied that the work was to commence from August 27,1990 and it was to be completed by June 26, 1991. However liability to pay the amount as claimed by the petitioner under different heads in para 6 of the petition is emphatically denied. It is stated that only a sum of Rs. 9,343.00 remains to be paid towards- the work executed by the petitioner. Petitioner never made any claim towards rise in wages of labour and price and material, etc. during the execution of the contract and even upto December, 1993.