PURNA NAND Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of pavement of fire station at Bawana, Delhi vide Work Order dated 9th March 1999/18.03.99/17.6.99. The work was to be completed within three months i.e. by 26th September 1999. However, the actual date of completion of the work was March 2000. The delay in execution of the work was due to respondent who failed to provide cement at an agreed price. There was unprecedented delay in providing of materials etc. The respondent also failed to release the payment of running bills in time and failed to pay the final bill. The applicant also requested for escalation, in terms of the escalation clause, but it was not agreed, therefore, the applicant served a notice dated 14th July 2003 upon the Commissioner of MCD regarding six claims given as under:

(2.) The respondent in response to the application submitted that the petitioner/contractor had not come to the Court with clean hands. The work was awarded on 17th June 1999 but he started work on 9th February 2000 and completed it on 4th April 2000 much beyond the period provided under contract. As per Clauses 5 and 8 of the agreement, he was to apply for extension of time, which he did not. He was also to submit his final bill which he failed to do. Since he did not submit the final bill, no bill could be finalized and the security could not be released. It is also submitted that he had no locus standi to invoke the arbitration clause as he has not followed the procedure as laid down in the arbitration clause. The application was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Clause 25, on the basis of which this application has been filed, is reproduced hereunder: