PARAMJEET SINGH NARULA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act", for short) the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an affidavit along with this petition stating therein that the petitioner completed the work to the entire satisfaction of respondent but the final bill was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that vide his letter/notice dated 13th April 2005, he requested respondent to prepare the final bill and release the security deposit. However, despite this notice the bill was not prepared and on his personal visits it was informed by Executive Engineer that certain CTE, CVC enquiry was there for which the bill was not being finalized. He also handed over a copy of letter dated 14th July 2005 to the petitioner. This letter was addressed to the Chief Technical Examiner CVC. The respondent vide letter dated 21st January 2008 also directed Manager Punjab & Sind Bank to renew FDR of the petitioner deposited by him towards security deposit. It is stated that the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide letter dated 31st May, 2008 and requested the Engineer Member DDA to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner received a letter from respondent that case of the petitioner was being processed and petitioner shall be intimated with respect to the same, however, no action was taken.

(2.) During arguments, counsel for respondent pleaded that the petition was barred by limitation since admittedly the disputes had arisen prior to 13th April 2005. The petitioner had served a notice dated 13th April 2005 and filed this petition in August, 2008 i.e. more than three years after the service of notice and thus the petition was barred by limitation.

(3.) If the contract between the parties had come to an end and a final bill had been prepared, the contention raised by the respondent would have been justified. However, in this case after completion of work, final bill of the petitioner was not prepared as for certain reasons, the matter went to CTE, CVC. The respondent had been telling CTE, CVC that it should finalize the matter soon so that respondent can make payment of security deposit to the petitioner and had not to incur interest on overdue payment as claimed by petitioner. Subsequent to that the respondent wrote letter to the banker of the petitioner asking the bank to renew the FDR. It is clear from these letters that due to pendency of matter before CTE, CVC, respondent had not closed the contract nor refunded the security amount nor settled the final bill of the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner served a notice to respondent for clearing its dues would not change the situation regarding respondent's stand and the factual situation that the contract was kept alive by respondent. Since the contract was being kept alive by respondent and respondent had not finalized the bill, I consider that the present petition made by petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator for settlement of its disputes is maintainable and it cannot be said that it was barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the arbitration clause signed between the parties provides that demand for arbitration can be made in writing within 90 days of receipt of intimation from Engineer Incharge that the bill was made for payment. It is not the case of respondent that the respondent had informed the petitioner at any point of time that its final bill was ready for payment.