TILAK RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it is alleged that petitioner is a contractor. Exective Engineer, Supplementary. Drain No.1, LM.Bund, Kishan Kunj 'D' Block, Delhi Adminis ration, invited tenders for construction of Supplementary Drain, S.W.Wall near Village Nilothi from R.D. 29325 to 29625 M on September 21,1989. Petitioner submitted this tender. By a letter No. EE/SDD- I/ACS 105/89-90/1786-97 dated October 5, 1989, aforesaid work was awarded after negotiations to the petitioner and an agreement bearing No.EE/SDD-l/ ACS/ 89-90/10 was executed between the parties. Work was to start from October 12, 1989 and was to be completed by October 11, 1990. By letter No. F.3(4)SDD-V/ 90-91/ACS/3864 dated January 21, 1993, time was extended upto March 31, 1993. By another letter No. F3(4)/SDD-IV/90-91/ACS/26 dated April 12,1990, the time was further extended upto April 30, 1994, for completion of the work. Clause 25 of the aforesaid agreement provides for settlement of disputes between the parties by way of arbitration. It is alleged that the petitioner wrote various letters to the Engineer Incharge for removing the obstacles faced by him in execution of the work as well as for settlement of his dues. Details of the disputes arising out of the aforementioned agreement are noted in para 11 of the petition. It is stated that by the letter dated September 15,1995, petitioner asked respondent No.3 to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes in question but he failed to do so. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to file the arbitration agreement and the disputes/claims as detailed in para 11 of the petition be referred to an arbitrator for adjudication.

(2.) Respondents have contested the petition by filing a joint written statement. It is not disputed that the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of Supplementary Drain, S.W. Wall near Village Nilothi from R.D. 29325 to 29625 M and an agreement containing arbitration clause bearing No. EE/SDD-I/ACS/89- 90/10 was executed and the time to complete the work was lastly extended upto April 30, 1994, as alleged. However, it is pleaded that the extensions were provisionally granted without prejudice to the right of the Govt. to recover damages in accordace with the provision of clause 2 of the agreement. Execution of the work was delayed by the petitioner and he ultimately abandoned the work. Department had, thus to initiate action against the petitioner under clauses 3(a), (b) & (c) of the aforesaid agreement for rescinding the contract and for execution of the balance work at the risk and cost of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent took all necessary steps for removal of the hindrances pointed out by the petitioner. Liability to pay the claims raised in para 11 of the petition has been emphatically denied.

(3.) Since the award of the work of construction of Supplementary Drain, S.W. Wall near village Nilothi from R.D. 29325 to 29625 M to the petitioner, execution of agreement No. EE/SDD-I/ACS/89-90/10 between the parties containing arbitration clause and also lodging of the claims as detailed in para 11 of the petition are not disputed by the respondents, the petition deserves to be allowed with direction to the Cheif Engineer. Flood Control Wing, National Capital Territory of Delhi, respondent No.3, to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims preferred by the petitioner.