SUSHIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON question as to interpretation of Clause 25 in General Conditions of contracts of MCD and Government of NCT of Delhi is involved in all these cases. Vide order dated 29th August, 2008, the divergence of opinion on the interpretation of the said clause was noticed and all the matters ordered to be taken up for hearing together.

(2.) THE said Clause 25 is as under:

(3.) THE divergence of opinion noted above is with respect to this question. While a Single Judge of this Court in Concrete India v. MCD Arbitration Application No. 130/2005 decided on 29th September, 2005 held that Clause 25(i) is so widely worded as to include all claims of the contractor in relation to any matter in connection or arisen out of a contract of carrying out the work, in a subsequently decided Gursaran v. MCD 2006 IV AD (Delhi) 35, another Single Judge whose attention had not been invited to Concrete India (supra) expressed a view that the disputes pertaining to actual working of the contract did not fall within the scope of Clause 25(i) and thus the procedure prescribed therein was not required to be followed and the Clause applicable was Clause 25(ii) which dealt with any other issues not covered by Clause 25(i); it was further held that in the case of disputes falling under Clause 25(ii), only a demand for appointment of an arbitrator to the Commissioner of MCD (in that case concerning MCD) was required to be made and upon the failure of the Commissioner to appoint the arbitrator Section 11(6) could be invoked.