VAISH BROTHERS AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the disputes had arisen between the parties under Agreement No.CEDZ/19 of 80-81 relating to the provision of married accommodation for 55 officers at Delhi Cantt, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Shri P.Anatharam, Chief Engineer. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties and examining and considering the material before him made and published his award on 16th August,1986. The award was filed in court and after notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties the respondent - Union of India filed its objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award. The objections can be summarised under the following heads:

(2.) Ms. Jyoti Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent arguing on the first point contended that the contractor having signed the final bill and having received payment in full satisfaction of its claim could not later on raise a dispute. She has placed reliance upon the judgments reported as Nathani Steels Limited Vs. Associated Constructions, 1995 Supp(3) SCC 324, M/s P.K.Ramaiah & Co. Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, National Thermal Power Corporation, 1994 (1) SCALE 1, State of Maharashtra Vs. Navbharat and State of Maharashtra Vs.Nav Bharat Builders, 1994 Supp (3) 83 in support of her contention that once there was a full and final settlement in respect of any particular dispute or difference in relation to a matter covered under the arbitration clause in the contract and that dispute or difference is finally settled by and between the parties, such a dispute or difference does not remain to be dispute and the arbitration clause could not be invoked even though for certain other matters the contract may be in subsistence. Once the parties had arrived at a settlement in respect of any dispute or difference arising under a contract and that dispute or difference is amicably settled by way of a final settlement for and between the parties, unless that settlement was set aside in proper proceedings it could not lie in the mouth of one of the parties to the settlement to spurn it on the ground that it was a mistake and to proceed to invoke the arbitration clause. If this was permitted the sanctity of the contract, the settlement also being a contract, would be wholly lost and it would be open to one party to take the benefit under the settlement and then question the same on the ground of mistake without having the settlement set aside.

(3.) In all the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent the court was concerned with the question as to whether a dispute which has already been settled between the parties could at all be referred to an arbitrator and whether the contractor was justified in invoking the arbitration clause. In my view, none of these judgments are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the contractor had signed the final bill which was prepared by the Union of India and had received payment only thereunder. It is nowhere mentioned that on the payment of this final bill there did not remain any dispute between the parties or all their disputes which had existed between the parties had been amicably settled. Moreover, it is stated in the reply that not only that the petitioner had signed the final bill under duress and coercion as the respondent was not making payment unless the petitioner had signed the same but the matter having already been referred to the arbitrator, the respondent cannot now make a grievance about the same. The respondent participated and submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator without any demur and did not raise any objection to the matter having been referred to the arbitrator. No objection at any time was raised by the respondent before the arbitrator that the matter having already been settled, the arbitrator did not have the jurisdiction to enter upon the reference. The award having gone against the respondent, in my view, it is too late a stage to agitate this question that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. In Prasun Roy V.Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority & Another, AIR 1988 SC 205 it was held by the Supreme Court that: